Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajbir Sehrawat, J.
Baggar Singh (deceased) Through His Legal Representatives & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Nand Kaur & Ors. – Respondents
RSA-2424-1999 (O&M)
Decided On : 08-02-2023
Suit for declaration of title only is not maintainable unless possession is claimed in the same suit is the cut-and-dried argument and the law point raised and resisted in this case. Therefore, this Court is to consider and decide whether there is any such proposition of law, and can there be, at all, any such preposition of law under the relevant statutory provisions. If yes; how, and if not; why?
Fact of the Case:
The appellants-plaintiffs filed the suit asserting therein that the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit land as joint shareholders and hence they are entitled to the correction of the entries in the record, and further; that the sale deed dated 26.09.1988 executed by Parsin Kaur, the defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.5 Nazir Singh was null and void.
Finding of the Court:
The suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs deserves to be decreed.
Issues: Whether the suit for declaration of title only is maintainable unless possession is claimed in the same suit?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit for declaration of title only is maintainable unless possession is claimed in the same suit. The court reasoned that Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, which deals with suits for declaration of title, does not prohibit the plaintiff from seeking any other alternate efficacious remedy, including the declaration of his status and title under general law, by exercising his right to equality before law and equal protection of law, which is a basic principle of rule of law. The court further held that the relief of possession is not even the concern of the Specific Relief Act and that a suit for possession is not even required or even permitted to be joined with any other relief; as further relief thereof.
Final Decision: The appeal stands allowed in the above-said terms.
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.
JUDGMENT
Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) - 'Suit for declaration of title only is not maintainable unless possession is claimed in the same suit' is the cut-and-dried argument and the law point raised and resisted in this case. Therefore, this Court is to consider and decide whether there is any such proposition of law, and can there be, at all, any such preposition of law under the relevant statutory provisions. If yes; how, and if not; why?
2. This is an appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.02.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, whereby the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1993 passed the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Faridkot, was upheld; though upsetting findings on one of the issues.
3. The brief facts, as involved in the present case, are that the appellants-plaintiffs filed the suit asserting therein that the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit land as joint shareholders and hence they are entitled to the correction of the entries in the record, and further; that the sale deed dated 26.09.1988 executed by Parsin Kaur, the defendant No.2, in favour of defendant No.5 was null and void. To substantiate their assertions, they had pleaded in the suit that originally defendant No.1-Nand Kaur, who is sister of the plaintiff No.1; was the owner to the extent of one-tenth share of the total land measuring 68 Kanals 08 Marlas. Puran Singh, who was the father of the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 and also another brother of Nand Kaur, expired about 8-9 years back and his estate has been succeeded by his only two daughters, namely, Jang Kaur and Chotto, who are plaintiffs No.2 and 3. Mutation to this effect had also been entered in their name. Plaintiffs No.4 to 7 and defendants No.3 and 4 are the sons, daughters and widow of Nanak Singh, who was the third brother of Nand Kaur. Nand Kaur had sold her one-tenth share to defendant No.2-Parsin Kaur, who is not related to the family, vide sale deed dated 19.02.1968 for a sale consideration of Rs.3,000/-. Challenging the said sale deed, plaintiff No.1 and Puran Singh, father of the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 and Nanak Singh, the predecessor of plaintiffs No.4 to 7 and defendants No.3 and 4, had filed suit No.20 dated 08.01.1969 for pre-emption of the said suit land. Plaintiff No.1, and father of plaintiffs No.2 and 3; and Nanak Singh-predecessor of plaintiffs No.4 to 7 and defendants No.3 and 4; had claimed one-third share each out of one tenth share of Nand Kaur; which was subject matter of the pre-emption of the suit. The sale which was subject matter of the pre-emption was for a consideration of Rs.3,000/-. The Civil Court handling the pre-emption suit ordered the plaintiffs to deposit one-fifth share of Rs.3,000/-, i.e. Rs.600/- as per the provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The said amount is stated to have been deposited on 10.04.1969. The said suit was tried and decided by the Sub-Judge First Class and was decreed in favour of the aforesaid plaintiff No.1 and the predecessor-in-interest of the remaining plaintiffs and two of the defendants, vide judgment and decree dated 10.07.1969, subject to payment of Rs.3,230/- to Parsin Kaur-defendant No.2 upto 05.10.1969. The amount of Rs.600/- already deposited was ordered to be deducted. The balance amount was paid to Parsin Kaur on 04.10.1969 and she had withdrawn Rs.600/- from the Court on 06.10.1969.
4. However, as is coming from the facts of this case, Parsin Kaur executed the sale deed dated 26.09.1988 in favour of the defendant No.5 Nazir Singh. The said sale deed is stated to have been executed through General Power of Attorney holder of Parsin Kaur, namely, Harnam Singh, defendant No.6. However, no mutation of this sale was entered in the revenue record on the basis of the said sale deed executed by Parsin Kaur in favour of defendant No.5. As a matter of fact, the original co-sharer, namely, Nand Kaur continued to be recorded in the revenue record as co-sharer in the suit property through out. It i
Court affirmed the right to declare property title under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, allowing declaratory relief without possession claim, while emphasizing prior suits' withdrawal does not ou....
(1) In an injunction suit, cause of action is recurring – Suit seeking declaration and injunction is per se not barred in view of withdrawal of earlier suit.(2) Bar on subsequent suit – Whether plain....
A plaintiff must seek recovery of possession if not in possession; mere declaration of title is insufficient under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
The failure to seek the relief of recovery of possession rendered the suit not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
A party not involved in previous proceedings cannot be bound by collusive decrees and may seek declarations of title despite not claiming recovery of possession.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for declaration of title must also seek recovery of possession if the property is not in the plaintiff's possession, as per Section 34 ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
