Summary
The Court granted a declaration of ownership while refusing an injunction and a late amendment seeking possession. The suit as framed claimed both declaration and consequential injunction, so failure to prove possession defeated the injunction on merits rather than making the entire suit non-maintainable under Section 34. The undisturbed finding of ownership supported a declaration despite its limited executability. A later suit based on alleged subsequent interference was not barred by Order II Rule 2 merely because an earlier injunction suit had failed.
Issues
- Whether failure of the consequential injunction claim barred a declaration of proven ownership under Section 34.
- Whether possession could be presumed or introduced through a belated amendment.
- Whether the later suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 because an earlier injunction suit had failed.
Provisions considered
- Section 34, proviso and Explanation, Specific Relief Act, 1963Maintainability was tested on the plaint claiming declaration and consequential injunction; failure of that consequential relief did not itself bar a declaration otherwise established. (¶¶ 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- Order II Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The later alleged incidents supplied a basis for declaratory claims that could not have been made in the earlier suit, so the bar did not apply on these facts. (¶ 17)
Held
- The plaintiff failed to establish possession and could not obtain an injunction against interference. His earlier admission and adverse findings on possession could not be displaced by a presumption that possession followed title. The delayed amendment seeking recovery of possession was also properly rejected. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
- The plaint sought declaration and a consequential injunction. Section 34’s proviso concerns maintainability as framed; failure of the consequential claim on evidence did not retroactively turn it into a bare-declaration suit barred at inception. The contrary proposition in Aralappa was not accepted as good law. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Order II Rule 2 did not bar the subsequent suit’s declaratory claim founded on alleged later acts of interference. Whether that claim succeeded on its merits was distinct from a bar based on omitted relief in the earlier suit. (¶ 17)
- The trial court’s positive ownership finding had not been reversed. The Court could not deny a declaration merely because possession and injunction were not established or because the declaration might be non-executable in these circumstances. A decree declaring ownership was granted while the other refusals remained. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22)
Result
Appeal partly allowed. Ownership declared in the plaintiffs’ favour; refusal of injunction and rejection of the amendment seeking possession sustained. No costs.