LexVENKATARAJA & ORS. versus VIDYANE DOURERADJAPERUMAL (D) THR.LRS. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 5 S.C.R. 814 VENKATARAJA & ORS. v. VIDYANE DOURERADJAPERUMAL (D) THR.LRS. & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 7605-7606 of 2004) APRIL 10, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s.34, proviso - Suit filed by C appellants for declaration of title to property without seeking consequential relief of possession - Maintainability - Held: Where defendant is not in physical possession, and not in a position to deliver possession to the plaintiff, it is not necessary for the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title to property, to D claim possession - However, in the instant case, respondent nos.3 to 10 were tenants, residing in the suit property and definitely in a position to deliver the possession - Respondent nos. 3 and 10 being admittedly in possession of the suit property, the appellants/plaintiffs had to necessarily claim the E consequential relief of possession of the property - Suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs was not maintainable, as they did not claim such consequential relief - To say that the appellants would be entitled to file independent proceedings for eviction of said respondents under a different statute, would F amount to defeating the provisions of Or.II, r.2 CPC as well as the proviso to s.34 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Or.II, r.2 - Specific Relief Act 1877 - s.42. Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s. 34, proviso - Purpose of - Held: The very purpose of the proviso to s.34, is to avoid G multiplicity of proceedings, and also loss of revenue of court fees. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants filed suit in the Civil Court for declaration that he had a proper H 814 VENKATARAJA v VIDYANE DOURERADJAPERUMAL 815 (D) THR.LRS. title to the suit property (situated in the erstwhile French A territory of Pondicherry) and for declaration that the sale deed dated 16-7-1959 executed by 'T', a Hindu widow, in favour of the defendant-'V' was null and void as 'T' had only a life estate and not an absolute title, to alienate the property. B Though the trial court decided the question of title in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, it found that the appellant/ plaintiff had filed the suit only for declaration of his right to the suit property, and since he had not asked for consequential relief of delivery of possession, the suit C was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed. The Appellate Court held that 'T' had sold only her life estate in the suit property, as she was only a life estate holder and further that, as the appellant/plaintiff had filed D a suit for declaration in respect of the suit property in, which there were tenants, it was not necessary for the appellant to claim any consequential relief for the reason that after obtaining such a declaration, appropriate relief could be claimed under Pondicherry Non-Agricutural E Kudiyiruppudars (Stay of Eviction Proceedings) Act of 1980. The respondents/defendants filed second appeals before the High Court. During the pendency of the appeals, defendant-'V' sold the suit property to respondent nos.1 to 3. By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that 'T' had acquired absolute title over F the property; that as defendant-'V' had purchased the suit property from 'T' vide sale deed, she had become the rightful owner, and also that, in view of the defendant-'V' G having been in possession of the suit property for over than 10 years, she had perfected the title to the suit property by prescription, under the provisions of the French Civil Code and as a consequence thereof, the suit H 816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R. A for declaration was not maintainable without seeking the relief of possession. The instant appeals therefore raised issues regarding: 1) the interpretation of French Hindu Law, as 8 to whether a Hindu widow having only a life estate, can be considered the absolute owner of a property, thus competent to transfer the said property; an<! secondly 2) whether the suit was not maintainable as the appellant/ plaintiff had not sought any consequential relief. C Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: Issue no.1 D 1. In view of the fact that the counsel'. appearing on behalf of the respondents, has fairly conceded that such a Hindu widow could not acquire the absolute title, there is no occasion to enter into that controversy. Even otherwise, the finding recorded by the High Cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.