IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 11 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 793 of 2024 SMT AMINA BEE AND OTHERS Versus SMT. AZRA BEGAM AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Shafiqullah - Advocate for petitioners.

Shri Makbool Khan - Advocate for respondents.

ORDER The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application of the petitioners/defendants under Order

7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint.

2. A suit has been filed by the plaintiffs who are daughter-in-law and granddaughter of the defendant No.1. The other defendants are the sons of defendant No.1. The plaintiff No.1 is daughter-in-law being wife of deceased son of defendant No.1.

3. The suit has been filed seeking declaration of share of the plaintiffs in the property which is alleged to be joint family property and further injunction is sought against the defendants seeking to restrain them from alienating the suit property without partition.

4. The application was filed on the assertion that in the plaint itself it has been admitted by the plaintiffs that they are not in possession but, despite that, the suit for declaration simpliciter has been filed without seeking the consequential relief of possession and, therefore, in terms of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, upon failure to seek a consequential relief, the suit has to fail and the suit is barred by law.

5. On considering the aforesaid argument, it is seen that as per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, the following has been provided:-

"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 property, 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 so 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.

Explanation.—A trustee of property is a “person interested to deny” a title adverse to the title of some one who is not inexistence, and for whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee."

6. The plaintiffs admit that they are not in possession and further they have omitted to seek a relief of possession.

7. It has been held by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Munni Devi (Smt.) vs. Shanti Kumar and others, reported in 2014 MP RN 428 that in such cases the suit should not be dismissed at the outset but opportunity should be granted to the party to amend the plaint accordingly once the party is found to be a rustic lady, not having any legal knowledge.

8. The coordinate Bench, in the aforesaid case, held as under:-

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is concurrent finding of facts as regards ownership rights of the plaintiff over the suitland. Neither before the first appellate Court nor before this Court any cross objection has been filed against the aforesaid findings by the respondents/defendants, hence, this finding has attained finality,however, as regards dismissal of suit on the premise of absence ofrelief of recovery of possession of the suit land justified by the Courtsbelow on the basis of section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, it iscontended that the appellant/plaintiff was an illiterate rustic village lady and did not have much knowledge of the legal complexities in the matter of prosecuting the suit, therefore, absence of relief ofpossession ought not to have been dealt with too technically by the Courts below to the extent of non-suiting her in a suit for declaration,instead she ought to have been afforded an opportunity to amend the plaint and seek necessary addition in the plaint and prayer clause. That was not done, which ought to have been done. Hence, the Courts belowhave committed