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

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 27.08.2019 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 57-A/2019 (A.F. Rabinson vs. Sunil & Anr.), affirming the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2019 passed by the learned 1st Civil Judge, Class-I, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 43-A/2014 (A.F. Rabinson vs. Sunil & Anr.), 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 original plaintiff instituted the suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property situated at Mouza Jarhabhatha, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, bearing Plot No. 68, Sheet No. 4, Nazul land admeasuring 2400 sq. ft., which was purchased by him from the United Christian Missionary Society India, Bilaspur, vide registered sale deed dated 24.05.1973. It is pleaded that since the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession of the suit property as its lawful owner, his name has been duly recorded in the revenue records, and he has constructed a residential house thereon after obtaining permission from the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur. It is further averred that defendant No.1 moved an application before the Nazul Officer for deletion of the plaintiff’s name from the revenue records and also attempted to forcibly dispossess him from the suit property, along with extending threats. Thus, the plaintiff asserts lawful ownership and possession over the suit property and contends that the actions of the defendant are illegal and without authority of law.

3. Per contra, defendant No.1, in his written statement, has denied the claim of the plaintiff and contended that the suit property neither belongs to the plaintiff nor was it validly purchased by him through the alleged registered sale deed dated 24.05.1973. It is pleaded that the said sale deed executed by U.C.M.S. (India) is void, as the said society was neither the owner nor in possession of the suit property and had already ceased to exist prior to the alleged transaction. It is further contended that the suit property was, in fact, purchased by the defendant’s father, Sharad Madhav, vide registered sale deed dated 01.05.1973. It is also pleaded that though both names were recorded in the revenue records, an application was moved before the Nazul Officer, who had ordered deletion of the plaintiff’s name and the said order has attained finality. It is further averred that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property and that possession was handed over to the defendant pursuant to orders passed by the competent authority, and thereafter, the defendant and his father have been in continuous possession. The defendant has alleged that the suit is based on false and concocted facts, suffers from absence of cause of action, is improperly valued, and is also barred by limitation; hence, it is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. 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 his title and possession over the suit land. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 07/02/2019, the plaintiff preferred a First Appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 r/w Section 96 of the Code of Civ