A court has the discretion to grant or not grant a declaration sought by the plaintiff under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, and this discretion should be exercised on sound judicial principles, considering factors such as evasion of court fees and admission of the plaintiff's claim by the defendant.

Headnote:
JURISDICTION - IMMOVABLE PROPERTY - SECTION 16, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - MOVEABLE PROPERTY - SECTION 20, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, SECTION 34 - COURT FEES ACT, 1879, SCHEDULE I, ARTICLES 11 AND 12 - DISCRETIONARY RELIEF - EVASION OF COURT FEES - ADMISSION OF CLAIM BY DEFENDANT - SUIT FOR DECLARATION - ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO PROPERTY - LEGATEE - PROBATE OR SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE - COURT FEES - JURISDICTION OF COURT - DETERMINATION OF RIGHTS IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY - DETERMINATION OF RIGHTS IN MOVEABLE PROPERTY - REJECTION OF PLAINT - DISMISSAL OF SUIT.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration of absolute ownership of immovable and movable properties under a will executed by his uncle, Kewal Kishan Handa. The defendant, Kewal Kishan Handa's wife, admitted the allegations in the plaint but claimed a monthly allowance of Rs. 300 as directed in the will. The plaintiff claimed jurisdiction based on threats made by the defendant in Delhi and her residence and work in Delhi.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that it had no jurisdiction to determine the plaintiff's rights in the immovable properties situated in Saharanpur, as per Section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, it had jurisdiction to determine the plaintiff's rights in the movable properties, as per Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, since the defendant resided in Delhi and some of the bank accounts were within the court's jurisdiction. The court also held that the plaintiff was not entitled to an absolute right to a declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and that the court had the discretion to grant or not grant a declaration. The court further held that the plaintiff's suit was a device to evade payment of court fees and that the defendant's admission of the plaintiff's claim made a declaration unnecessary.
Issues: 1. Whether the court had jurisdiction to grant a declaration regarding the immovable and movable properties in suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the discretionary relief of declaration in the facts and circumstances of the case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Under Section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, suits for determination of rights in immovable property must be instituted in the court within whose jurisdiction the property is situated. Since the immovable properties in question were not located within the court's jurisdiction, the court lacked jurisdiction to determine the plaintiff's rights in those properties. 2. Under Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, suits for determination of rights in movable property can be instituted in the court within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides or carries on business. Since the defendant resided in Delhi and some of the bank accounts were within the court's jurisdiction, the court had jurisdiction to determine the plaintiff's rights in the movable properties. 3. Under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, the court has the discretion to grant or not grant a declaration sought by the plaintiff. In this case, the court found that the plaintiff's suit was a device to evade payment of court fees and that the defendant's admission of the plaintiff's claim made a declaration unnecessary. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion to refuse the declaration.
Final Decision: The court rejected the plaintiff's claim with respect to the immovable properties and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with regard to the movable properties.

( 1 ) THE Plaintiff files this suit for declaration that he is the absolute owner of all the properties moveable and immovable mentioned in Sch. a attached to the plaint under the will dated 26th Dec. 1977 executed by Kewal Kishan Handa and the defendant has no right, title or interest in the said properties. The Plaintiff alleges that Kewal Kishan Handa was his paternal uncle and husband of the defendant, that plaintiff was brought up as a son by his uncle as he did not have any child, that his uncle was carrying on business under the name and style of Handa Printing Press at Saharanpur and he purchased properties out of his own earnings from the said business. There are three plots situated at Saharanpur detailed in Sch a attached to the plaint. The move- able properties consist of the amounts lying in deposit with the banks as detailed in Sch. a . The plaintiff further alleges that Kewal Kishan Handa executed a Will on 26th December, 1977 bequeathing all immovable and movable properties to him with a direction that he would pay Rs. 300. 00 per month to the defendant and that he would also spend Rs. 1,00,000. 00 on the construction of a Dharamshala in the name of the deceased, that Kewal Kishan Handa died on 15th June, 1978 leaving behind the said assets, that the defendant is trying to interfere with the plaintiff s right, that a cloud has been cast on his right under the Will. The defendant in the written statement admits all the allegations contained in the plaint except that a monthly allowance of Rs. 300. 00 under the Will was not being paid to her. The defendant denies that she ever interfered with the rights accrued to the plaintiff under the Will. In fact the defendant says that she has no objection to the grant of decree for declaration provided the amount of Rs. 300. 00 per month is regularly paid to her under the Will. She complains that she has not been paid the said amount since the death of her husband which occurred on 15th June, 1978. On merits no issue arises as the defendant admits the claim of the plaintiff. The following issues, however, arise for determination:

1. Whether this court has jurisdiction to grant the declaration regarding the immovable properties situate at Saharanpur and the moveable properties in suit? If not, to what effect? 2. Whether the plaintiff is to be granted the discretionary relief of declaration in the facts and circumstances of the case?issue No. 1 The immovable poperties in dispute are as follows:

1. Plot No. 9 Area 250 sq. yds. situated in Durga Colony, Saharanpur (U. P.) Valued Rs. 30,000. 00 2. Plot No. 581/8/9 sq. yds. (?) situated in Khan Alampur, Janakpura Bajaria Road Saharanpur. Valued Rs. 40,000. 00 3. Plot No. 80 Area 338 sq yds. situated in Pathanpura, Saharanpur (U. P.), half share Valued Rs. 25,000. 00all these plots are situated at Saharanpur. The plaintiff claims a declaration that he is the absolute owner of these properties. Para 9 of the plaint is as under:

"that some of the investments are in the bank within the jurisdiction of this Hon ble Court and the cause of action for the suit has arisen at Delhi where the defendant has held out threats and where the defendant resides and works for gain. Hence this Hon ble court has the jurisdiction to try this suit".

( 2 ) THE plaintiff claims jurisdiction with regard to immovable properties on the basis that the defendant held out threats to him at Delhi and that she resides and works for gain at Delhi. Section 16. Civil P. C. is as under:

"section 16 Subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suits (a) for the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits, (b) for the partition of immovable property, (c) for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property, (d) for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property, (e) for compensation for wrong to immovable property, (f) for the recovery of movable prope

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1979 Supreme(Del) 183

High Court Of DelhiANIL KUMAR HANDA - AppellantVersusSUMAN BALA - RespondentSuit 14 of 1979Decided On : 08/24/1979

Judicial Analysis

High Court Of Delhi
ANIL KUMAR HANDA - Appellant
Versus
SUMAN BALA - Respondent
Suit 14 of 1979
Decided On : 08/24/1979