A suit for declaration of title with a consequential relief for injunction is not a suit for declaration simpliciter; it is a suit for declaration with further relief. Therefore, such a suit is not barred under S.34 of the Specific Relief Act, even if the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property.

JUDGMENT:- This plaintiffs second appeal is from the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Manipur allowing the appeal of the defendant and dismissing the plaintiffs suit.

2. The plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 22 of 1976 for declaration of his title to the suit land measuring 2 (two) Sangams of agricultural land under Patta No.64/1213 (N) B.T. on purchase from the defendant-respondent at a consideration of Rs.1000/- by a registered sale deed dt. 12-5-71 with delivery of possession and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his rightful possession thereof. He averred that since the purchase he had been in possession of the suit land paying its land revenue and he applied for mutation which was refused on objection by the defendant who thus asserted hostile title and interfered with his possession.

3. The defendant in her written statement denied the averments of the plaintiff that she sold the land with delivery of possession and that the plaintiff paid the revenue, but she admitted that she objected to the plaintiffs application for mutation. She also stated, inter alia, that her husband, late Khangembam Baikul Singh, was the original owner and pattadar of a lou under Patta No.64/1213 B.T. measuring about 7 Sangams of which the suit land was a part; that she and her daughter, Inakhunbi Devi, had been possessing the whole lou including the suit land through their tenant since the death of her husband about 15/16 years ago; that being in need of money she mortgaged the suit land to the plaintiff in 1971 for Rs.1000/- agreeing to pay 9 pots of paddy per year as interest; and that when she wanted to redeem the mortgage the plaintiff did not agree.

4. On the pleadings the trial Court framed as many as 13 issues including whether the registered deed was of sale or of mortgage; whether the plaintiff acquired right by purchase; whether the plaintiff or the defendant was in possession of the suit land; whether the suit land was inherited by the defendant and her daughter from the defendants husband; and whether the suit was hit by S.34 of the Specific Relief Act.

5. The trial Court found, inter alia, that the defendant sold the suit land to the plaintiff by executing a registered sale deed, and that the defendant was in possession of the suit land and she had salable right over the suit land at the time of the sale, and the plaintiff acquired right of ownership over the suit land by purchase; the suit did not suffer from defect of parties though the daughter Inakhunbi Devi was not impleaded; and that the suit was not hit by S.34 of the Specific Relief Act as the plaintiff prayed for permanent injunction as a consequential relief. The trial Court accordingly decreed the suit declaring the title and for recovery of possession. On appeal, the learned Additional Judge found that on the death of Balkul Singh, the defendant and her daughter, Inakhunbi Devi jointly inherited the suit land; that without partition the defendant alone would not be competent to sell the suit land to the plaintiff even though her name alone appeared in the record of rights, and consequently the plaintiff acquired no right and title over the suit land by purchase; that the defendant, and not the plaintiff, having been in possession of the suit land the trial Court erred in decreeing recovery of possession which the plaintiff did not ask for; and that the suit was hit by S. 34 of the Specific Relief Act as the plaintiff who was not in possession did not seek further relief of recovery of possession. The suit was accordingly dismissed. Hence this second appeal.

6. Mr. W. Kulabidhu Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits: Both the Courts held that it was a sale and not a mortgage; that the learned lower appellate Court erred in holding that the suit land was jointly inherited by the defendant and her daughter overlooking the fact that in the record of rights only the defendants name appeared in the