Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Supratim Bhattacharya, J.
Amanulla Molla & Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
Monoranjan Mridha & Anr. - Respondent
S.A. 441 of 2016
Decided On : 15-07-2024
Specific Relief - Ownership Dispute - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 - The court interpreted Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, emphasizing that a plaintiff not in possession cannot seek mere declaration of title without also seeking recovery of possession, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs claimed ownership of a 12 shatak land, asserting they purchased it from the legal heirs of a deceased owner. The defendants contested this claim, asserting their long-term possession of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property and had not sought recovery of possession, thus affirming the lower courts' decisions based on the bar under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
Issues: Whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit due to the bar under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act without considering the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of possession.
Ratio Decidendi: A plaintiff not in possession cannot seek a mere declaration of title without also seeking recovery of possession, as per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
Result: The appeal is dismissed, affirming the lower court's judgment.
JUDGMENT :
Supratim Bhattacharya, J.
1. The judgment dated 30.09.2015 passed by Ld. First Appellate Court that is the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track 1st Court Basirhat, North-24-Parganas in Title Appeal no. 26 of 2011 has given rise to the instant appeal. Through the said judgment the Ld. First appellate court has dismissed the said appeal on contest without any cost thereby affirming the judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
2. The appellants herein were the plaintiffs before the Trial court and appellants before the First Appellate Court while the respondents herein were the defendants before the Trial Court and respondent before the First Appellate Court.
3. Facts of the lis The appellants/plaintiffs are claiming to be the owner of the suit property that is 12 shataks of land situated within the district of North-24-Parganas erstwhile P.S. Hasnabad presently P.S. Hingalgunj Mouja – Bnakradobar, having the Revisional Settlement khatian No. 479, LR khatian No. 287/2, Dag No. 79 which is mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. They are claiming to be the owners of the suit property having purchased from Nidrabala, Bholanath, Baikuntha, Renu and Rina who are the wife, sons and daughtes of Gangadhar Baidya, who happened to be the son of Muktabala having inherited the property from her father Gobinda Sardar.
On the contrary the plaintiffs are claiming themselves to be the rightful owners of the suit property.
This tussle between the appellants/plaintiffs and the respondents/defendants as regards to 12 shataks of land has given rise to the lis.
4. Facts before the Trial Court
The appellants/plaintiffs have given rise to the lis, being Title Suit No. 18 of 2006, by filing the plaint on 15.02.2006 seeking declaration, possession and injunction. Through the said plaint the appellants/plaintiffs have claimed to be the owners of the suit property.
The defendants had entered appearance before the Trial Court and had contested the suit by filing written statement thereby controverting the claims of the appellants.
On the basis of the pleadings of the plaintiffs and the defendants the Ld. Trial Judge had framed the following issues.
1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form?
2. Have the plaintiffs any cause of action to file the suit?
3. Have the plaintiffs’ right, title and possession over the suit land?
4. Are the plaintiffs entitled to get the decree as prayed for?
5. To what other relief/reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled?”
After obtaining evidence both oral and documentary on behalf of both the parties the Ld. Trial Judge that is the Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Divn), Basirhat, North-24-Parganas had reached to the conclusion and delivered the judgment on 11.03.2011 that as the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land while the defendants are in possession of the suit land and as the plaintiffs have sought for mere declaration of their title in respect of the suit land without any prayer for recovery of the possession and giving any explanation thereto, the plaintiffs are not inclined to any decree for declaration and injunction as prayed for because of the bar laid down under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
5. Facts before the First Appellate Court Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Court the plaintiffs preferred the first appeal which has also been contested by the respondents/defendants. The Ld. First Appellate Court framed the following points for determination:
2. Whether the Ld. Court below is justified in dismissing the issues no. 1 to 5 against the appellants/plaintiffs?”
After elaborate discussion the Ld. First Appellate Court has found that the plaintiffs/appellants are not in possession of the suit land as such the plaintiffs are barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act from seeking only declaration and injunction in respect of the suit proper
A suit for declaration may be maintained even if the plaintiff is not in possession, provided a consequential relief is sought, as mutation does not establish ownership.
A plaintiff not in possession must seek recovery of possession to maintain a suit for injunction; failure renders the suit non-maintainable.
Court affirmed the right to declare property title under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, allowing declaratory relief without possession claim, while emphasizing prior suits' withdrawal does not ou....
Point of law - The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (i....
(1) In an injunction suit, cause of action is recurring – Suit seeking declaration and injunction is per se not barred in view of withdrawal of earlier suit.(2) Bar on subsequent suit – Whether plain....
The plaintiffs cannot claim a mere declaration of title without seeking further relief for possession, as stipulated by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, rendering the suit not maintainable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
