A suit for mere declaration of title is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, if the plaintiff is not in possession of the property and fails to seek the consequential relief of recovery of possession.

Judgment on Board

1. The present Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.09.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 147-A/2024 (Smt. Dulaurin Bai vs. Abhishek Kumar & Ors.), affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Addl. 1st Civil Judge Senior Division to the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Durg (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 119-A/2022 (Smt. Dulaurin Bai vs. Abhishek Kumar & Ors.), whereby the civil appeal filed by the appellant/ plaintiff was dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

2. The plaintiff has instituted the suit against the defendants seeking a decree for declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 16.08.2017 is illegal, void and not binding upon her pleading inter alia that the agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 335/1 and 339, admeasuring 0.21 and 0.47 hectares, respectively, situated at Village Khopli, P.H. No. 43, R.N. No. Anda, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.), was recorded in the name of the plaintiff and she has been in possession thereof carrying out agricultural activities. It is further averred that the defendants, by playing fraud, got the said land transferred in their name by executing a sale deed dated 16.08.2017, by impersonating the plaintiff and her daughter through some other persons, as neither the plaintiff nor her daughter were present before the Sub-Registrar at the time of execution and registration of the said sale deed. It is further pleaded that the cause of action arose on 10.07.2020, and the plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs.7,00,000/- and affixed court fee of Rs.500/-, praying for a decree declaring the said sale deed as null and void.

3. Per contra, defendant No.1 has filed his written statement denying the entire claim of the plaintiff and has contended that he had purchased the suit land after paying the full consideration amount and got the same duly registered in his name. It is pleaded that prior to execution of the sale deed, an agreement to sell was executed between the parties, pursuant to which the plaintiff received the advance amount and thereafter, upon receiving the balance consideration, remained present before the Sub-Registrar and got the sale deed registered. It is further averred that the plaintiff has set up a false and concocted cause of action, inasmuch as she had earlier filed an application dated 17.06.2019 before the Court seeking to implicate defendant No.1 and other persons, which has already been rejected. It is also contended that the plaintiff, in collusion, has unnecessarily impleaded her daughter Renu Sahu as a defendant. The suit is further stated to be barred by limitation, and hence, liable to be dismissed.

4. Defendant Nos. 2 to 8 remained ex parte in the proceedings and did not file any written statement.

5. After framing the issues and upon due appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish her title and possession over the suit land. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 30/07/2024, the plaintiff preferred a First Appeal under Section 96 r/w Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court, on re- appreciation of the entire evidence on record, affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

(a) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court are wholly illegal, perverse and contrary to the settled principles of law. He submits that bot