1. Dispute over property settlement deed — Vesting of interest — Declaration of title and limitation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 4238
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, J
Vasantha – Appellant
Versus
Rajalakshmi @ Rajam – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3854 OF 2014
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dama Seshadri Naidu
For the Respondents: V. Ramasubramanian
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dama Seshadri Naidu
For the Respondents: V. Ramasubramanian
A suit for mere declaration of title is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, if the plaintiff, being able to seek consequential relief such as recovery of possession, omits to do so.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 27 and Articles 58 and 65 - Suit for declaration - Limitation period of three years for seeking "any other declaration" under Article 58 begins from the date the right to sue first accrues - Regarding possession of immovable property based on title, the twelve-year period under Article 65 for a reversioner is deemed to begin only when the estate of the reversioner falls into possession, typically upon the death of the limited heir (Paras 12, 17, 23)
(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 - Suit for declaration simpliciter - The proviso prohibits a court from granting a declaration of title where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration, omits to do so - Where the plaintiff is not in possession and is aware of the defendant's possession, the failure to seek the consequential relief of recovery of possession renders the suit for mere declaration non-maintainable (Paras 25, 29, 30)
Facts of the case:
Settlor executed a settlement deed creating life interests for two sons and subsequently a vested interest for granddaughters. The sons later reverted these interests to the mother, who then executed a subsequent deed granting absolute interest to the sons. The legal heir of one deceased granddaughter filed a suit for a declaration of ownership while the life estate holder was alive, without seeking the relief of possession.
Findings of Court:
The suit was barred by limitation as there was no evidence that the cause of action for declaration accrued within three years of filing. Additionally, the suit was not maintainable under the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, because the plaintiff was not in possession and failed to seek the consequential relief of recovery of possession, even after the death of the life estate holder.
Issues: (i) Whether the suit for declaration based on the first settlement deed was barred by limitation? (ii) Whether the suit for declaration simpliciter was maintainable in view of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? (Para 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a suit for mere declaration is hit by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act if the plaintiff is eligible to seek further relief, such as possession, but fails to do so. Furthermore, a declaration suit must be initiated within the stipulated three-year period under Article 58 of the Limitation Act from the date the right to sue accrues.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
-
practice and procedure
- limitation
- specific relief
- amendment of pleadings (Para 33)
Table of Contents
2. Whether suit for declaration was barred by limitation and whether suit for mere declaration was maintainable without seeking possession. (Para 10 )
3. Suit for declaration without seeking possession is barred by Section 34 of SRA, 1963 and is barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 65 of Limitation Act. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 )
4. A declaratory suit without seeking consequential relief of possession is not maintainable under proviso to Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
5. Impugned judgment set aside; appeal allowed; judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court restored. (Para 35 , 36 )
6. What is the period of limitation for filing a suit for declaration under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
The period of limitation is three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. (Para 12 , 23 )
7. Is a suit for mere declaration maintainable if the plaintiff is not in possession and can seek further relief?
No, under proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, such a suit is not maintainable if the plaintiff omits to seek further relief like possession. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
8. When does the period of limitation for a remainderman or reversioner to sue for possession commence?
Under Article 65 Explanation (a) of the Limitation Act, 1963, it commences when the estate of the remainderman falls into possession, i.e., on the death of the life estate holder. (Para 12 , 17 )
9. Can a plaintiff amend a plaint at any stage of the suit to seek the relief of recovery of possession?
Yes, amendment can be made at any stage, including the second appellate stage. (Para 33 )
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. The action that set in motion the instant dispute was in the year 1947, when a mother transferred property inherited at the death of her husband, in one form to her two sons and in another, to her daughter. Some forty-odd years later, the daughter’s husband filed a suit in respect of such property, in 1993. The Additional District Munsiff, (“Trial Court”) decided the matter in 1999. The Additional District and Session Judge, (“First Appellate Court”) returned a decision on the First Appeal in 2002. The Second Appeal was decided by the High Court, (“Impugned judgment”) in 2012. It is against this order and judgment in Second Appeal that the present civil appeal has been preferred.
BACKGROUND FACTS
2. It would be necessary to advert to the facts underlying the present dispute.
3. On 10th July 1947, one Thayammal executed a settlement deed, (“First Settlement Deed”) granting rights in her property to her two sons namely Raghavulu Naidu and Chinnakrishnan @ Munusamy Naidu, (“Munasamy”) for their lives and thereafter to the former’s two daughters namely Saroja and Rajalakshmi (present Respondent now represented through LRs). Saroja pre-deceased Thayammal as also her father and uncle, in 1951.
3.1 Subsequently, Raghavulu and Munusamy executed a Settlement Deed dated 31st July 1952, (“Second Settlement Deed”) reverting the said interests in the properties back to their mother.
3.2 Thayamma, soon thereafter, executed a further Settlement Deed, (“Third Settlement Deed”) dated 18th August 1952, bequeathing absolute interest in such properties only in favour of her two sons namely Raghavulu Naidu and Munusamy Naidu, with the consequence of extinguishing the rights, if any, of Saroja and Gopalakrishnan.
3.3 Munusamy had no children. His wife Pavunammal enjoyed life interest in the property bequeathed to her husband. They had an adopted daughter, Vasantha (present Appellant, now represented through LRs).
3.4 In 1993, during the lifetime of Pavunammal, Gopalakrishnan (Husband of Saroja) filed a suit, subject matter of the present lis, praying for a declaration as the owner of the properties since he was the sole heir of Saroja in terms of the First Settlement Deed.
4. It is in this brief background of facts that the dispute entered the courts. It would be useful to have a summary of family relations forming the backdrop of, and parties to, the dispute by way of a chart, as immediately hereunder:-
Personal Naidu
↓
Thayammal (Mother & Settlor)
↓
Raghavulu Naidu(1) (Elder Son) Munusamy Naidu(2) (Younger Son)
↓ ↓
Saroja(3) (Elder Grandchild) Pavanuammal(5) (Daughter-in-law)
Rajalakshmi(4) (Younger Grandchild) D-3 23.02.22 Vasantha(Adopted daughter/ Appellant)
↓
Gopalakrishnan (Saroja's Husband) (Married Saroja in 1949)
↓
Krishnaveni (2nd Wife, Unconnected to the Case)
↓
Elavarasi, Poongodi, Vichnukathy, Maithunvan (Four Children, Unconnected to the Case)
• Pounammal is also referred to as Pavanuammal at some places, as was so done by the Courts below.
PROCEEDING BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT
A. PLAINT
5. Plaintiff (Gopalakrishnan) filed a suit for declaration and to establish his vested rights and interest in the property.
5.1 It was urged that only the First Settlement Deed had legal sanctity. Accordingly, the wife of Munusamy is only entitled to possession and enjoyment till her lifetime. There is no right of transfer in her favour.
5.2 The Second Settlement Deed is only for the lifetime of Thayammal, and the same would not impact the vested right created in favour of deceased Saroja, inherited by Gopalakrishnan, as her husband and sole heir.
5.3 The adoption of Vasantha is illegal. Also, the vested right in favour of Saroja was created prior to such adoption and, therefore, would not affect the rights of Gopalakrishnan.
B. WRITTEN STATEMENT
6. The written statement is of denial of all claims made by Gopalakrishnan.
6.1 It is incorrect to state that the two s
