1. In a suit for declaration the plaintiff has challenged the status of the defendant as a permanent resident of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It ii alleged that the defendant was a resident of Sialkot and had shifted to the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the year 1947 and was not entitled to be declared as a permanent resident of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the State Subject certificate issued in his favour by the Tehsildar on 22-8-1956 is challenged on the ground that it has been obtained by Fraud. Among the Issues framed by the trial court, two issues were treated as preliminary issues which are issues Nos: 1 and 4. These two issues are as under:

Issue No: 1. Whether the suit is not triable by the Civil Court? O.P.D.

Issue No: 4. Whether the plaintiff has no right to institute the present suit: O. P. D.

2. The trial court returned its finding on these issues in favour of the defendant and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. On appeal the learned Addl. District Judge reversed the findings of the trial court and held the suit maintainable.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record and the law on the subject.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the suit for declaration as regards the status of the defendant is not maintainable unless the plaintiff seeks a relief in his favour or shows in what manner the defendants status would affect the plaintiffs rights. From the perusal of the plaint it transpires t at the plaintiff has not shown anything in the plaint about his own rights or about the likely affect of his rights by the defendant being a permanent resident of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no declaration can be granted to the plaintiff as none of the civil rights of the plaintiff are affected by the defendants status Sec. 9 of the Civil Pr: Code has been invoked and it is asserted that the suit cannot be tried as it does not involve my dispute of a civil nature. Reliance has been placed on District Board of Farrukhabad Vs. Prag Dutt and Ors, AIR 1968 Alld. 382, and Mohd Sher Khan Vs. Union of India, AIR 1964 Allahabad 63.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent has invited my attention to a Full Bench authority of this court, Viz: Behari Lal Vs. Behari Lal, AIR 1972 J&K 114. In Para 14 of this judgment it is held that if a question about a party being a permanent resident of the State arises before a court, it can be decided by the civil Court. Civil Court can consider whether a litigant before it is or is not a permanent resident of the State. This was a case in which status of a litigant as being a permanent resident of the State had a bearing on the controversy involved in the litigation, and opposite sides rights were likely to be affected. Therefore, the law laid down in this authority was on a different point and was not directly in issue before the court. Learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to an authority of Supreme Court viz: Vemareddi Ramaraghava Reddy and others, Vs. Konduru Seshu Reddy and others, AIR 1967 S. C, 436 for the proposition that u/s 42 of the Specific Relief Act declaration of any nature can be granted, Sec. 42 of the Specific Relief Act was held to be only illustrative and not exhaustive. It was a case in which a worshipper was held competent to maintain a suit on behalf of a deity.

6. I am not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that a suit simpliciter for a negative declaration about the status of any person is maintainable without showing as to in what manner status of the other side has affected the civil rights of the plaintiff. At no place in the plaint the plaintiff has shown that his rights are likely to be affected by the defendant being a permanent resident of the State. The plaintiff in a suit for declaration has depend on his own right and title and if that right or title is denied or affected by the other side a declaratory

Click Here to Read the rest of this document