( 1. ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment/decree dated 21-2-89, passed by ADJ, Panna in C. A. No. 3-A/85 partially modifying the decree dated 30-1-85, passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Ajaygarh in C. S. No. 17-A/84, the defendant/appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 100, CPC.

( 2. ) APPEAL has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:-Whether the suit for declaration simpliciter without seeking any other relief is maintainable ?

( 3. ) PALTU Gadariya was the owner of the suit lands situated at Village Singhpur, Tehsil Ajaygarh. He was survived by his widow Muniya Bai and two sons. Plaintiff/respondents Sunwa and late Hulasi Gadariya. Defendant/respondent Badi Bahu is widow of Hulasi Gadariya, Plaintiff/respondent Sunwa instituted C. S. No. 17-A/84 for declaration that he is the owner of the suit land, in possession. It has been further stated that there had been a partition among Muniya, Sunwa and Hulasi Gadariya wherein l/3rd interest in suit land was allotted to each of 3 members of the family. Muniya Bai executed a Will dated 14-7-65 (Ex. P-1) of her 1/3rd interest in favour of plaintiff/respondent Sunwa. Defendant/respondent Badi Bahu without any right executed a sale deed, dated 2-5-80 (Ex. D-1) in favour of defendant/appellant Darbari. Plaintiff/respondent is not bound by the aforesaid sale deed 2-5-80 (Ex. D-1 ). Accordingly, a declaration has been sought to the effect that plaintiff/respondent is owner of the suit lands. The suit was resisted by the defendant alleging inter alia that there was no partition among Muniya Bai, Sunwa and late Hulasi. Sunwa and Hulasi inherited the suit lands in equal share from late Paltu. Accordingly, they remained in separate possession of their shares. Badi Bahu is widow of Hulasi and has sold her 1/2 share in the suit land to the defendant/appellant Darbari vide Regd. sale dated 2-5-80 (Ex. D-1), since then defendant/appellant remained in possession of this part of suit lands. The suit for mere declaration of title is not maintainable.

( 4. ) CIVIL Judge decreed the suit vide judgment dated 30-1-85 and declared plaintiff/respondent Sunwa to be the owner of the suit lands. The defendant/appellant preferred C. A. No. 3-A/85. Vide judgment dated 21-2-89, ADJ, partially allowed the appeal and held that plaintiff/respondent Sunwa is owner of the suit land to the extent of 2/3rd. The sale deed dated 2-5-80 (Ex. D-1) has been held valid to the extent of 1/3 rd share of defendant/respondent Badi Bahu.

( 5. ) IT has been contended that the suit for declaration simpliciter without seeking any other relief is not maintainable. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is as under :-34. Discretion of Court as to declaration of status or right.-Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any person, may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief: Provided that no Court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. The object of the proviso to Section 34 is to prevent a multiplicity of suits by preventing a person from getting a mere declaration of right in one suit and then after seeking the remedy without which the declaration would be useless. The "further relief referred in the proviso must be a relief flowing directly and necessarily from the declaration sought and a relief appropriate to and necessarily consequent on the right. The meaning of the proviso is to the effect that a mere declaration should not be granted where, as things stand at the time when the suit is brought, the plaintiff is entitled to further relief which he omits to claim either because he does not want to pay the stamp duty or for any other reason. The proviso does not extend