The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction may not be maintainable if the plaintiff fails to seek the consequential relief of possession and does not question the validity of relevant documents.

ORDER :

1. Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs under Section 100 of the CPC against the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree by which trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs.

2. The suit property was originally held by Girdhari who had two sons namely Maalikram and Latel. Maalikram had two sons namely Kaam Singh and Hukum Singh. The two plaintiffs, being the sons of Hukum Singh, filed a suit that they are title-holders of suit property bearing Khasra No. 194/2 area 0.90 decimal marked as ^d* ^[k* ^x* ^?k* in Schedule 'A' appended with the plaint and the sale deed (Ex. P/1) executed by plaintiffs father Hukum Singh along with his brother Sokhilal and his widow Kachrabai in favour of defendants No. 20 and 21 is not binding on the plaintiffs and defendants be restrained from interfering with their possession of the suit property in which defendants set up a plea that plaintiffs' father Hukum Singh has already sold the suit property in favour of defendants No. 20 and 21, as such, they are not entitled for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

3. Learned trial Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit holding that plaintiffs are title-holders of Khasra No. 142/2 marked as ^d* ^[k* ^x* ^?k* in Schedule 'A' appended with the plaint against which defendants No. 1 to 19 preferred an appeal wherein the first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court principally holding that the suit property has already been sold by plaintiff father along with his brother and widow in favour of defendants No. 20 and 21 and further holding that plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property and they have not sought for the consequential relief of possession of the suit property, as such, their suit is barred by proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 against which this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs.

4. Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava and Mr. Avinash Choubey, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that the first appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court holding that plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property bearing Khasra No. 194/2 area 0.90 decimal by recording a finding which is perverse and contrary to the record, as such, the second appeal deserves to be admitted for hearing by formulating substantial question of law for determination.

5. Admittedly, plaintiffs brought the suit that they are owners and title-holders of suit property bearing Khasra No. 194/2 area 0.90 decimal and defendants No. 20 and 21 be restrained from interfering with their possession by granting permanent injunction in their favour.

6. Khasra No. 194/2 total area 2 acres was sold by plaintiffs' father Hukum Singh along with his brother Sokhilal and his widow Kachra Bai vide registered sale deed dated 03/11/1980 in favour of defendants No. 20 and 21 which the plaintiffs have admitted and sought declaration that the said sale upto the extent of 0.90 decimal is not binding on them.

7. Learned first appellate Court found that plaintiffs are not in possession of 0.90 decimal of the suit property and they have not sought the consequential relief of possession which they were required to seek by virtue of proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and thereby, held that taking into account that plaintiffs have not sought the consequential relief of possession, their suit would not be maintainable and further held that sale deed dated 03/11/1980 (Ex. P/l) has not been questioned in the suit filed by the plaintiffs on 30/09/2003 and no good ground has been shown for impeaching the validity of the said sale deed and there is no evidence on record, as such, the first appellate Court has rightly reversed the judgment and decree of the tri