LexDEOKUER & ANR. versus SHEOPRASAD SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F DEOKUER & ANR. v. SHEOPRASAD SINGH AND ORS. April 8, 1965 [A. K. SARKAR, M. H!DAYATULLAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Specific Relief Act (Act 1 of 1887), s. 42-Declaratory suit-Pro- perty in .dis]iiute' attached under s. 146 Criminal Proced~re Code- Omission to sue for relief of possession whether bars suit. There was dispute about the property in suit between the appel- lants and the respondents. The property was attached by the Magis- trate under s. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subsequently the appellants filed a suit for declaration of their title to the property but made no prayer for the consequential relief of possession. The suit ""S decreed by the trial court but the High Court set aside the decree o!i the ground that the suit was bad under s. 42 of the Specific Relief Act for failure to sue for possession. Appeal to this Court was filed with certificate of fitness. HELD: In a suit for declaration of title to property, !\led when it stands attached under s. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is not necessary to ask for the further relief of delivery of posses- sion. The fact, if it be so, that in the case of such an attachment the Magistrate holds possession on behalf of the party whom he ultimately finds to have been in possession, is irrelevant. [656H-657B] Moreover the further relief contemplated by the proviso to s 42 of the Specific Relief Act is relief against the defendant only. In the present case the Magistrate was in possession and he was not a party to the suit. [657C-DJ Further it is not necessary to ask for possession when the property is in cv,stodia legis. There is no doubt that property under attach- ment undev s. 145 of the Code is in cv,stodia legis. [657E] Sunder Singh Ma!!ah Singh Sanatan Dharam High School, Trust G v. Managing Committee, Sunder Singh-MaUah Singh Rajput High School, (1937) L.R. 65 I.A. 106 and Nawab Humayim Begum v. NlbWab Shah Mohammad Khan, A.LR. 1943 P.C. 94, relied on. H K. Sundarama Iyer v. Sarvajana Sowkiabi! Virdhi Nidhi Ltd. I.L.R. [1939) Mad. 986, approved. Dukhan Ram v. Ram Nanda Singh, A.LR. 1961 Pat. 425, dis- approyed. OvIL APP ELLA TE JurusmcrmN: Civil Appeal No. 329 of 1962. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 26, 1957 of the High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No. 253 of 1949. 655 656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS • (1965] 3 8.LR. Sarjoo Prasad and R.C. Prasad, for the appellants. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and D. Goburdhun, for respondents nos. 1 to 4 and 6. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sarkar, J. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the ap- pellants in 1947 for a declaration that the defendants first party B had acquired no right or title to a property under ~rtain deeds and that the deeds were inoperative and void. The suit was decre- ed by the trial Court but on appeal by the defendants first party to the High Court at Patna that decree was set aside. The High Court having granted a certificate of fitness, the appellants have 0. brought the present appeal. The defendants first party have alone contested the appeal and will be referred to as the respondents. The High Court held that as the appellants were not in pos- session of the property at the date of the suit as found by the learned trial Judge and the respondents were, their suit must fail under the proviso to s.42 of the Specific Relief Act as the appel- l> lants had failed to ask for the further relief of recovery of posses- sion from the respondents. In this view of the matter the High Court did not consider the merits of the case. The fact however v1as that at the date of the suit the property was under attachment by a magistrate under powers conferred by s. 145 of the Code of g Criminal Procedure and was not in the possession of any party. This fact was not noticed by the High Court but the reason why it escaped the High Court's attention does not appear on the record. The only point argued in this appeal was whether in view of the attachment, the appellants could have in their suit asked for P the relief for delivery of possession to them. If they could not, the suit would not be hit by the proviso to s. 42. The parties seem not to dispute that in the case of an attachment under s. 146 of the Code as it stood before its amendment in 1955, a suit for a simple declaration of title without a prayer for delivery of posses- sion is competent. The respondents contend tha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.