Where plaintiff seeks declaration that he is owner of properties without seeking possession, such suit not maintainable.

The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.25 of 1984 on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, to pass a decree declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the immovable properties in the school premises and has absolute right in the administration of the school and in the school premises by name King Solomon English School at Kadirkaman, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 and their henchmen from interfering with the administration of King Solomon English Medium School at the schedule mentioned premises and for costs.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said school was organised in the year 1981. On 7. 1981, the defendants 1 and 4 and one Chandrasekaran entered into an agreement to run the said school. Under the deed of partnership, the fourth defendant was appointed as the Manager and Correspondent of the school. On 18. 1981 the said Chandrasekaran retired from the partnership and subsequently on 29. 1982 the said partnership was dissolved by executing a document between the first and fourth defendant and thereby the fourth defendant has become the absolute owner of the properties and exclusive administrative control over the school.

3. The fourth defendant on 11. 1982 sold the ownership in the said institution to the plaintiff. Simultaneously, the fourth defendant had executed a release deed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to his executive right in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the fourth defendant executed another document in favour of the first defendant, but it was obtained illegally under threat and duress of the defendants 1 to 3. According to the plaintiff, they have been in possession and control over the school and the first defendant with the help of defendants 2 and 3 try to trespass into the school and therefore the plaintiff has filed the suit.

4. The first defendant filed a written statement and contested the suit. It is the case of the first defendant that the fourth defendant while deciding to dissolve the partnership agreed to relinquish his right in favour of the plaintiff after getting Rs.2,500 and a document was also entered into to that effect. Ultimately, the first defendant purchased the right of the school on 13. 1983. On that basis, the first defendant claims that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief sought for in the suit.

5. The trial court framed as may as five issues and found that Ex.A-3, the dissolution deed in favour of the plaintiff is valid and the fourth defendant was the absolute proprietor of the school subsequent to the dissolution, the plaintiff is administering the school cannot be correct. Consequently, the trial court granted the decree only with reference to the declaration aspect and with respect of the prayer for injunction, the lower court rejected the suit. The trial court also gave liberty to the plaintiff to file a suit for recovery of possession. The defendants 1 to 3, aggrieved by the decree declaring the plaintiffs right to administer the school, the above appeal has been filed.

6. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff/1st respondent filed the suit for declaration and for injunction. Though the defendants took the specific plea that they are in management of the said school, the plaintiff did not take any steps to amend the prayer, namely, for recovery of possession. The plaintiff had taken the risk and ultimately the trial court found that the 1st defendant was in management of the said school at the time of filing the suit and so the plaintiff is not entitled for the decree for perpetual injunction, though the plaintiffs ownership over the movables and his right to administer the said school has been declared by the trial court. On that basis the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants 1 to 3 has submitted that when the plaintiff/1st respondent had taken the risk and not amended the prayer for possession and when the trial court has