A suit for a bare declaration is not maintainable if the plaintiff is able to seek a consequential relief, but fails to do so.

H.R.Khanna, J.

1. This regular second appeal filed by Lachman Dass and nine other defendants is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar, whereby he accepted the appeal of Arjan Singh, plaintiff - respondent, and awarded a decree for declaration in his favour against Lachhman Dass and other defendants. The only question that arises for determination in the present appeal is whether the suit for declaration as brought by the plaintiff - respondent is maintainable.

The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Lachhman Dass and other appellants were granted a decree for possession in respect of the property in dispute against Mst. Sardar Begam and 11 others including Amar Singh on 4th July 1945. The appellants filed an application on 29th August 1953 for execution of that decree and in he application they described Amar Singh judgment - debtor, as Amar Singh alias Arjan Singh, Warrant for possess on was accordingly issued on 5th March 1954. On 8th March 1954 when the bailiff wanted o execute the decree by dispossessing Arjan Singh the latter executed a rent note in favour of the appellants with respect to the property in dispute. The bailiff accordingly made a report the Arjan Singh has executed rent deed in favour of the decree-holders. Arjan Singh then filed an application under Order 21 rule 100 Civil Procedure Code, contending that he was in possession of the property in his own right and that he had been illegally dispossessed from the same. The executing Court held that as Arjan Singh had executed rent note in favour of the decree-holders no cause of action was left to him o come to the Court under order 21 rule 100, Civil Procedure Code. His application was accordingly rejected. Arjan Singh then filed the present suit on 19th October 1954 for a declaration that there was no relationship of tenant and landlord between him and the defendants in respect of he property in dispute. According to Arjan Singh he was made to execute the rent note in favour of Lachhman Dass and other appellants by coercion and undue influence. Arjan Singh also prayed for injunction restraining the defendants from evicting him on the basis of the aforesaid rent note, but this relief was subsequently given up on 13th June, 1955.

The defendants contested the suit and pleaded that they exercise no coercion and undue influence in obtaining the aforesaid rent note from the plaintiff and that the suit was not maintainable in the present form. The following issues were framed in the case :-

1. Whether the rent note from the plaintiff was got executed under coercion, if so, what is its effect ?

2. Whether the suit in the present from if barred by section 52. Specific Relief Act ?

3. Relief ?

The trial Court decided both the issues in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. On appeal by Arjan Singh, plaintiff, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge reversed the findings of the trial Court on both the issues and granted the decree for declaration sought by the plaintiff.

In second appeal the learned counsel for the defendant-appellants has not challenged finding of the lower appellate Court on issue No.1 because of its being a finding of fact. He has, however, argued that the suit is not maintainable in the present form.

Two arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants in support of his contention that the suit is not maintainable in the present form. In the first instance, it is argued that the suit is not maintainable because the plaintiff in the present case seeks a negative declaration to the effect that there is no relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties. It is urged that no suit for a negative declaration is maintainable. Reliance in this connection has been placed upon the case Daw Pone v. Ma Hnin May, A.I.R. 1941 Rengoon 220, wherein it was held that a suit for declaration that the defendant was not Keittima daughter of th