Back
DEEPAK GUPTA
Manmohan Mehta – Appellant
Versus
General Public – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Deepak Gupta, J.
Suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs (appellants herein) was dismissed by the trial Court on 03.07.2023 and the said judgment has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court of Ld. District Judge, Chandigarh on 18.12.2023. Against this concurrent finding, the plaintiffs of the suit have approached this Court by way of present Regular Second Appeal.
2.1 Perusal of the paper-book would reveal that Smt. Kamlesh Mehta wife of Manmohan Mehta was the owner of House No.3041. Sector 37D, Chandigarh, by virtue of a sale deed dated 10.03.2004. She died intestate on 13.12.2019, leaving behind her husband Manmohan Mehta, two sons namely Rishi Mehta & Akshay Mehta; and one daughter namely, Ritu Mehta (plaintiffs appellants herein). All these four legal heirs of Smt. Kamlesh Mehta filed the suit for declaration, claiming that after the death of Smt. Kamlesh Mehta, the suit property had devolved upon them as per section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as there was no other legal heir except them. They prayed for a decree of declaration to that effect. The suit was filed against the General Public. Despite publication in newspaper having circulation in the are
The court affirmed that a decree for declaration can be granted under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, even without seeking further relief, recognizing the plaintiffs as legal heirs entit....
A declaratory relief under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act can be granted when there is a denial of legal character or title, even if no further relief is sought.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for declaration may be maintainable even if not coupled with the prayer for partition, but the plaintiff must seek further relief than ....
Civil death declarations under Specific Relief Act require an active denial of legal character, which was absent in this case.
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 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 suit for declaration may be maintained even if the plaintiff is not in possession, provided a consequential relief is sought, as mutation does not establish ownership.
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
