The plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence to establish a claim for property declaration, and a suit for declaration without seeking consequential relief is unsustainable under the Specific Relief Act.

JUDGMENT :

P. Dhanabal, J.

This Second Appeal has been preferred as against the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet in A.S.No.58 of 2011 dated 11.02.2013, wherein the respondent herein has preferred the Appeal challenging the decree and Judgment passed by the District Munsif, Ranipet in O.S.No.72 of 2009 dated 23.09.2010.

2. The appellant herein, who is the plaintiff, has filed the suit before the trial court for the relief of Declaration and the same was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said Decree and Judgment, the respondent, who is the defendant has preferred the First Appeal. The First Appellate Court reversed the Judgment and dismissed the suit, aggrieved by the said decree and Judgment, the appellant, who is the plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties in this Second Appeal are referred as plaintiff and defendant, as referred before in the trial court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint filed by the plaintiff are as follows:-

The suit property originally belonged to one Munusamy and he had four sons, namely, Annamalai, Srinivasan, Raji and Ganapathy. The plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of Munusamy and wife of Srinivasan. The 1^st defendant is the grand son of the said Munusamy and son of Annamalai. The plaintiff is working as servant maid at SIPCOT. After the demise of said Munusamy the said four sons orally divided the property into equal shares and the schedule property was allotted to the plaintiff’s husband, viz., Srinivasan. Taking advantage of the demise of Srinivasan, the defendant refused to give due share to the plaintiff. Inspite of repeated request made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to give the property to her. Now only the plaintiff came to know that the defendant and his family members creating encumbrance over the schedule property and they have no right to create encumbrance over the property. Now the defendant is trying to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the property, therefore, filed the suit.

5. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:-

(i) The allegations made in the plaint are denied as false and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the allegation made in the plaint except those that are specifically admitted by the defendant. The averments that Munusamy had four sons; they divided the properties; the schedule property was allotted to the share of Srinivasan; the plaintiff is the wife of Srinivasan and got two children and the defendant refused to give share to the plaintiff, are all denied as false.

(ii) The defendant does not know about the plaintiff and the said Srinivasan was lunatic child of the said Munusamy. During the life time of Munusamy, the said Srinivasan was abandoned and whereabouts were not known at all. The said Srinivasan was not in a position to get married as he was lunatic. The plaintiff never got married with the said Srinivasan at any point of time. The plaintiff is a stranger to the said property and she has no right over the suit property, therefore, the prayer for declaration cannot be granted. The defendant is the absolute owner of the property and the plaintiff never prevented the defendant at any point of time and the plaintiff has to strictly prove the alleged marriage between the said Srinivasan and the plaintiff. The suit is barred by limitation and the same is not maintainable and there is no cause of action for the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. Based on the abov