Summary
A suit seeking only declaration of title was not maintainable when the plaintiff admitted that the defendant was in possession and did not seek the consequential relief of possession. The suit was also barred by limitation. The Court restored the trial and first appellate courts’ dismissal.
Issues
- Whether the title declaration suit was barred by limitation.
- Whether a plaintiff out of possession could seek declaration of title without consequential relief for possession.
Provisions considered
- Section 34, proviso, Specific Relief Act, 1963A plaintiff able to seek further relief, including possession, cannot omit that relief and maintain a bare declaration of title. (¶¶ 28-31, 33-35)
- Section 27, Limitation Act, 1963Expiry of the limitation period bars the remedy but does not itself extinguish title; the High Court erred in overlooking limitation when reversing the lower courts. (¶ 32-35)
Held
- A person out of possession who seeks declaration of title must also seek the consequential relief of possession; a bare declaration is barred by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. (¶¶ 28-31, 33-34)
- Limitation bars the remedy but does not extinguish title. The High Court failed to address the limitation basis on which the trial and first appellate courts had dismissed the suit. (¶ 32-35)
Result
The appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment was set aside, and the trial and first appellate courts’ dismissal of the suit was restored.