Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
Anand Kumar Jain, S/o. Late Narendra Kumar Jain – Appellant
Versus
Madhu Jain, W/o. Shri Sudhir Jain – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case and claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. interpretation of section 34 of the specific relief act. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. final ruling and dismissal of the civil revision. (Para 9 , 10) |
ORDER :
DWARKA DHISH BANSAL, J.
This civil revision has been preferred by the petitioner/defendant 1 challenging the order dated 15.01.2020 (Annexure P/4) passed by 15th Civil Judge Class-I, Jabalpur in civil suit No.301-A/17, whereby learned court below has dismissed the defendant 1’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the fact that plaintiff is out of possession and is in a position to seek the relief of possession and partition, has filed the suit simplicitor for declaration of her 1/6th share and permanent injunction. As such he submits that the suit as filed is not maintainable in the light of section 34 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT . He further submits that the plaintiff without any basis, has valued the suit for Rs.50 lacs and has paid fixed court fees, which cannot be said to be proper.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. From perusal of the plaint it is clear that the pl
A suit for declaratory relief can be maintained independently under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, regardless of concurrent claims for possession.
(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....
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 ....
(1) There is no bar in Specific Relief Act, 1963 in granting standalone declaratory decree.(2) Discretion in granting declaratory decree on ownership cannot be exercised by Court to deny such relief ....
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.
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....
Limitation period for suits involving cancellation of sale deeds and declarations is a factual issue that requires proper examination, and prior suits do not preclude new claims if possession remains....
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
