Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
C. P. Sen and B. C. Verma, JJ.
RAMNARAYAN - Appellant
Versus
FIRM MANGERAM RADHESHYAM HARDOI (U.P.) - Respondents
First Appeal 222 Of 1976
Decided On : 11/13/1978
Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (old section 42) merely gives a statutory recognition to certain well-recognised types of declaratory reliefs and further enacts a limitation on the grant of such relief in the shape of the proviso. [Para 8]
Section 34 does not exhaust the field of declaratory decrees and the Courts do have jurisdiction to grant declarations apart from the terms of that section. [Para 9]
The Court's power to grant declaratory decrees is not limited to the terms of section 34 present of section 42 (old) of the Specific Relief Act. Declaratory decrees can well be made by the Courts under the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as section 9 or Order 7, Rule 7, of the Code. The exercise of jurisdiction to grant such declaratory reliefs beyond the terms of that section shall depend upon the facts of each case. Sach a declaration may be granted when it is essential as a step to a relief in some other case or when a declaration in itself is a substantial relief and has immediate coercive effect. [Para 11]
It is not an absolute right to obtain a declaratory decree. The Courts have a discretion in the matter of grant of such declaratory reliefs. The Courts' must exercise sound judgment while granting or refusing such reliefs. Danger to involve the opponent in vexatious litigation should be carefully avoided. [Para 12]
( 1 ) THE lower Court has accepted the preliminary objection raised by the defendants-respondents to the maintainability of the suit for the relief of bare declaration without claiming any further relief. The suit has accordingly been dismissed. The plaintiffs challenge this dismissal of their suit by this appeal.
( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff No. 4 is a partnership firm. It had entered into certain commercial transactions with defendant No. 1 which is a partnership firm trading at Hardoi in U. P. Defendant No. 2 is one of the partners of the said firm. According to the plaintiffs appellants, defendant No. 1 was the commission agent and used to supply Singdana to plaintiff No. 4 on approval. The transactions ranged between Feb. 1975 to April 1975. Thereafter some dispute appears to have arisen between the parties. There was exchange of letters, telegrams and notices between the parties.
( 3 ) ON 16-4-1975, plaintiff No. 4 required 5 wagons of Singdana to be sent to it. However, on 17-4-1975, defendant No. 1 was asked not to make purchases at higher rate. Defendant No. 1 nevertheless purchased two trucks of Singdana at rs. 350/- per quintal for plaintiff No. 4. It appears that defendant No. 1 purchased Singdana at Rs. 360/- per quintal and also at Rs. 362. 50 per quintal. It appears that defendant No. 1 wanted to sell certain quantity of Singdana to plaintiff No. 4. Sometime in May 1975, some quantity of Singdana was sent to plaintiff No. 4 at Itarsi and the railway receipt and demand draft were sent through the Bank. They were not honoured by plaintiff No, 4. The plaintiffs alleged that on 26-6-1975 accounts between the parties of all their dealings were settled at Itarsi and a sum of Rs. 1,02,521/- was found due to defendant no. 1 from plaintiff No. 4, According to the plaintiffs, this was in final settlement of all the dues. However, defendant No. 1 alleged that it had certain more dues outstanding against the plaintiffs and made a demand for the same alleging that plaintiff No. 4 had committed breach of contract to purchase 5 wagon-load of Singdana and was liable for damages. The total amount then claimed by defendant No. 1 was Rupees 41,509. 60. It is the plaintiffs' allegation that no such amount was due to defendant No. 1 from either of them and the claim was false. According to them, ac- counts were settled finally on 26-5-1975 at Itarsi and nothing was due from them to defendant No. 1. The precise allegation in this behalf is contained in para 11 of the plaint which is as follows:
"11. That the plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to a declaration that they have to pay nothing to defendants on account of any transaction. They are, therefore, filing this suit for declaration that no amount or Rs. 41,509. 60 N. P. Claimed in the notice, dated 22/24-775 is due by any of the plaintiffs to defendants" with these allegations, the plaintiffs claimed the following relief: "that it be declared that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 had no dealing with the defendants and they have to pay nothing to the defendants in respect of any dealings or breach of contract and so also accounts of defendants with plaintiff No. 4 have been settled and have been fully cleared and nothing is due by plaintiff No. 4 to the defendants. "
( 4 ) THE defendants-respondents while challenging the suit on merits also contended that the suit for mere declaration without claiming further relief of injunction preventing them from recovering the amount due under the contract was not maintainable.
( 5 ) THE lower Court on the pleading of the parties, among others, framed issue no. 5 as under:
"whether the suit for bare declaration without claiming the relief of injunction is not maintainable?"
This preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the suit has found favour with the lower Court which dismissed the suit as not maintainable in view of sec. 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
( 6 ) SHRI Y. S. Dharmadhikari, Learned counsel
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
