Based on the provided legal document, the core legal principle established is that a suit for declaration of title alone is maintainable even if possession is not claimed within the same suit. The law does not require that possession must be claimed simultaneously with the declaration of title; rather, the declaration of ownership or title can stand independently of possession claims (!) (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the statutory provisions and judicial interpretations clarify that the relief of possession is an independent remedy and not necessarily a "further relief" to a declaration of title. The absence of a claim for possession in a suit for declaration does not render the suit non-maintainable. The legal framework permits separate proceedings for possession, and the law recognizes that a person can seek a declaration of title without necessarily claiming possession at the same time (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Additionally, the law emphasizes that the discretion granted to courts under certain statutes, such as Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, should not be exercised to deny relief where the plaintiff has established his right. The constitutional principles of equality before the law and equal protection prohibit courts from denying relief solely based on procedural technicalities or the absence of possession claims, especially when the plaintiff has proved his title through valid legal transactions (!) (!) (!) .

In summary, the legal position is that a suit for declaration of title is valid and maintainable even without a concurrent claim for possession, and the law does not impose a mandatory requirement that possession must be claimed in the same suit. The procedural and statutory provisions support the independent nature of title and possession claims, and courts are constitutionally bound to grant relief once the plaintiff proves his right, without unwarranted restrictions based on procedural technicalities.