A suit for a simple declaration of title or to challenge a document is barred by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act if the plaintiff is not in possession and fails to seek the consequential relief of recovery of possession.

Lastly, heard on 11.12.2025 Pronounced on 06^th January, 2026

1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 19.03.2024 (decree signed on 30.03.2024) passed by learned District Judge-V, Jamshedpur in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2023 reversing the judgment dated 31.03.2023 (decree signed on 05.04.2023) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 19 of 2020.

2. The original suit was decreed by the learned trial court and the judgment and decree passed in original suit was reversed by the learned 1^st appellate court. Consequently, the plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court.

3. The original suit was filed for following reliefs: -

a) For decree declaring that the sale deed executed by Khada Bala Singh in favour of the defendants 1,2 and 3 in respect of the schedule land which has been registered at District Sub Registry Office at Jamshedpur bearing deed No. 1834 dated 18.03.2009 is illegal, null and void, inoperative and not binding on plaintiffs.

b) For cost and interest of the suit.

c) For any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs will be found entitled in law and equity.

4. The counsel for the appellants has submitted that the suit was filed seeking a declaration that registered sale dated 18.03.2009 was null and void and was liable to be cancelled. By the said deed, the sale deed was executed by Khandu Bala Singh in favour of defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 3.

5. He submits that the suit property was recorded in the name of Hari Singh and Bhandu Singh, both were sons of Joy Singh. Ram Singh had two sons Abhi Singh and Hondra Singh. The plaintiffs are the widow and sons of Hondra Singh. He submits that Abhi Singh did not have any son, but had three married daughters and the defendants are the sons-in-law of Abhi Singh. The vendor of the property namely Khandu Bala Singh was the widow of Abhi Singh.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts that the parties are governed by customary law and Hindu law has no applicability. He submits that under the customary law the daughters do not inherit the property, and therefore, sale by widow of Abhi Singh to her three sons-in-law is void and illegal. He submits that the suit was decreed but the learned 1^st Appellate Court has reversed the finding on the ground that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and the plaintiffs did not seek recovery of possession from the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 who were the sons-in law of Abhi Singh. The learned counsel submits that the case of the plaintiffs was that the suit property was never delivered to defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the plaintiffs were still in possession and that the registered sale deed dated 18.03.2009 executed by the widow of Abhi Singh in favour of defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 (her three sons-in-law) was never acted upon. However, the widow of Abhi Singh had expired two years prior to filing of the title suit. The learned counsel has submitted that since the plaintiffs were in possession, the suit was wrongly held to be barred by section 34 of Specific Relief Act. He submits that a substantial question of law be framed and decided by this court.

7. The case of the plaintiffs:-

a. The suit was filed by wife and sons of Hondra Singh seeking a declaration that the sale deed was executed by Khandu Bala Singh in favour of defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 by registered sale deed dated