A suit for mere declaration without seeking further relief of possession is not maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Sham Sunder, J.

1. This appeal, is directed, against the judgement and decree, dated 13.03.01, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rupnagar, vide which, it decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, and, the judgement and decree, dated 17.05.02, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, vide which, it dismissed the appeal.

2. The facts, in brief, are that, the plaintiff, as per the policy of the Punjab Government, being belonging to the Scheduled Caste Category, was allotted 5 acres of land, equal to 25B-6B, in village Gharispur and Bara Surtapur, near Surapur Farm, vide order dated 12.12.72. The consolidation proceedings, took place, in village Gharispur and Bara Surtapurk. As per jamabandi, for the year 1990-91, the land, measuring 11 kanals 9 marlas, bearing khasra Nos. 20//20, 21/1, 29, and 21, in the area of Gharispur, was also allotted, to the plaintiff, and, as such, total land, measuring 36 kanals 15 marlas, was allotted, to him, though, he was entitled to 42 kanals 3 marlas. It was stated that the land, bearing khasraNo. 20//19/2 and22/l, which was in possession of the plaintiff, was illegally and wrongly allotted, to defendant No.1. Plaintiff, filed a petition, under Section 42 of the Punjab Consolidation Act, 1948, before the Additional Director Consolidation, Punjab, Mohali, which was allowed, in his favour. It was further stated that feeling aggrieved, defendant No. 1, filed a Writ Petition, before this Court, which was dismissed, on 05.10.95, confirming the order of the Additional Director Consolidation, Mohali, Punjab. It was further stated that, as such, the plaintiff, became the owner of the land, in dispute. It was further stated that, vide conveyance deed No. 2287 dated 18.10.95, registered, on 26.10.95, defendant No. 2, allotted the land, in dispute, to defendant No. 1. It was further stated that the matter, had already been decided upto this Court, and no appeal, against its order, was filed. It was further stated that the conveyance deed, was illegal. The defendants, were many a time, asked to treat the conveyance deed, as illegal, null and void, but to no avail. Ultimately, a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, was filed.

3. Defendant No. 1/appellant, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, he took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was pleaded that the suit was not maintainable, as the plaintiff never came into possession of the land, in dispute. It was further stated that, in fact, defendant No. 1, is in possession of the land, in dispute. It was further stated that the land, in dispute, was never allotted, to the plaintiff. It was further stated that defendant No. 1, spent huge amount, for improving the land, in dispute. It was further stated that the Additional Director, Consolidation, had no jurisdiction, to decide the fate of the land, in dispute. It was further stated that the land, in dispute, was sold by defendant No. 2, in favour of defendant No. 1, vide registered sale deed. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck --

(i) Whether the impugned conveyance deed dated 18.10.95 is illegal,null and void and as such inoperative against the plaintiff qua the disputed land as alleged - OPP

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as claimed through this suit against the defendant - OPP

(iii) Is this suit not mamtainable - OPD

(iv) Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit - OPD

(v) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit - OPD

(vi) Relief.

5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the record of the case, the trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs.

6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the defendant/appellant, which was dismissed, by the Court of Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, vide judgement and decree