AKKAMMA & ORS. versus VEMAVATHI & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1187 · Decided: 25-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1187
   [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1187
1187
AKKAMMA & ORS.
v.
VEMAVATHI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5884 of 2009)
NOVEMBER 25, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.34 – Two suits were filed in 1982
and 1987 in respect of the suit property – The 1982 suit, for
perpetual injunction, was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground
that plaintiff could not establish his lawful possession – Appeal
was also dismissed by the High Court – The plaintiff alleged that
defendants made attempts to interfere with his possession, hence
1987 suit was founded – Suit was for declaration of ownership and
injunction – The trial Court held that plaintiffs proved ownership,
but the aspect of possession and obstruction went against the
plaintiffs – The suit was dismissed – High Court upheld the decision
of the trial Court – Before the High Court, the plaintiff had sought
to amend the plaint seeking alternative relief of possession of the
suit property, however, the said relief was denied – Before Supreme
Court, the appellants-plaintiffs having regard to the provision of
s.34 of the 1963 Act urged that the suit ought not to have been
dismissed as along with the claim for declaration, injunctive relief
was also sought – Held: The High Court was right in holding that
possession of the suit property was not established and hence
injunctive relief could not not be granted – The High Court was
also right in rejecting the plea for amendment – But that factor
ought not to be a ground for denying declaration of ownership to
the plaintiffs – There is no bar in the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in
granting stand alone declaratory decree – The Trial Court came to
a positive finding that the original plaintiff was the owner of the
suit property – But it held that in absence of declaration of relief of
possession by the plaintiff, declaration of title cannot be granted –
This line of reasoning is not correct – There is a misconstruction of
the provisions of Section 34 of the 1963 Act – The original plaintiff
was entitled to declaration that he was the absolute owner of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1188
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
suit property – There is no bar in granting such decree for
declaration and such declaration could not be denied on the
reasoning that no purpose would be served in giving such
declaration – May be such declaratory decree would be non-
executable in the facts of the case, but for that reason alone such
declaration cannot be denied to the plaintiff.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The prohibition or bar contained in proviso to
Section 34 of the 1963 Act determines the maintainability of a
suit and that issue has to be tested on the basis the plaint is
framed. If the plaint contains claims for declaratory relief as also
consequential relief in the form of injunction that would insulate
a suit from an attack on maintainability on the sole ground of bar
mandated in the proviso to the aforesaid section. If on evidence
the plaintiff fails on consequential relief, the suit may be dismissed
on merit so far as plea for consequential relief is concerned but
not on maintainability question invoking the proviso to Section
34 of the 1963 Act. If the plaintiff otherwise succeeds in getting
the declaratory relief, such relief could be granted. [Para 16]
[1199-F-G]
2. So far as the reliefs claimed in the suit out of which this
appeal arises, prayer for declaration was anchored on two
instances of interference with the possession of land of the
plaintiffs and injunctive relief for restraint from interference with
the property was also claimed. But possession of the said property
by the original plaintiff was not established. The alternative relief
sought to be introduced at a later stage of the suit was also found
to be incapable of being entertained for the reason of limitation.
Thus, the foundation of the case of the plaintiffs based on these
two factual grounds collapsed with the fact-finding Courts rejecting
both these assertions or allegations. But that factor ought not to
be a ground for denying declaration of ownership to the plaintiffs.
There is no bar in the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in granting
standalone declaratory decree. The Trial Court came to a positive
finding that the original plaintiff was the owner of the suit-property.
But it held that in absence of declaration of relief of possession
by the plaintiff, declaration of title cannot be granted. We have
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
11

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.