2026 Supreme(Cal) 169

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.
Arun Kumar Mondal – Petitioner 
Versus 
Hagru Gorain And Ors. – Respondents 
SA 193 of 2016
Decided On : 05-05-2026  

Revenue records are for fiscal purposes and do not confer title. Property descriptions are valid if the land is identifiable through parent title and area. A prayer for permanent injunction constitutes sufficient consequential relief under Section 34, preventing the dismissal of a suit for declaration of title.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7 Rules 3 and 7 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 115 - Record of Rights - Mutation - Title - Suit for declaration and possession - Essential requirement for describing immovable property - Plaint must contain description sufficient to identify property - If property can be identified by indicators other than boundaries, such as plot numbers, area, or reference to parent title, the description is sufficient - Revenue entries are for fiscal purposes and do not constitute documents of title - Statutory presumption of correctness of revenue records does not prevail over binding civil court decrees - Proviso to Section 34 of the 1963 Act - Prayer for permanent injunction constitutes consequential relief - No bar under Section 34 where injunction is claimed alongside declaration. (Paras 34, 43, 71, 95, 111)

(B) Appeal - Appellate Jurisdiction - Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Scope of Second Appeal - High Court should not interfere with findings of fact unless they are perverse, irrational, or based on no evidence - Assessment of evidence must consider admissions made during cross-examination and the weight of prior judicial decrees over conflicting revenue entries. (Paras 50, 52, 115)

Facts of the case:
The litigation arose from a dispute over the title and possession of a parcel of land originally part of a larger estate. The plaintiff sought declaration of title and confirmation of possession, alleging that a clerical error in revenue records during a settlement operation wrongly identified the specific survey plot. The defendants claimed title based on an inheritance through the daughter of a previous owner who had allegedly already alienated the land to the plaintiff’s predecessor. The First Appellate Court dismissed the suit, finding the property description vague and ruling that the suit was barred under Section 34 for lack of prayer for recovery of possession.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the error in survey plot numbering was a mere clerical defect and did not render the property unidentifiable, as the identity was firmly established by the parent title and a previous civil court decree. The Court further observed that the defendants' witness had explicitly admitted the plaintiff’s purchase. It was ruled that as the plaintiff had prayed for a permanent injunction, the suit was not hit by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The theory of 'vagueness' was rejected based on the hierarchy of property identification markers and the prior judicial settlement of the identification issue.

Issues: Whether the description of the suit property was impermissibly vague under Order 7 Rule 3, and whether the suit lacked maintainability due to the failure to seek recovery of possession as a consequential relief under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.

Ratio Decidendi: A property description is sufficient if it can be identified through coherent markers including fractional area, parent title, and plot number, even where specific boundary lines are omitted. Revenue records do not confer title and cannot supersede prior judicial declarations. A permanent injunction represents 'further relief' under Section 34, and a court may, under Order 7 Rule 7, mould the relief to grant recovery of possession if the plaintiff's title is proved and the defendant is found to be a trespasser.

Result: Appeal allowed; trial court decree restored.