Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.1. Essentially, they seek a negative declaration in favor of the government, on the grounds of illegal grabbing of valuable public property.

3. The defendants contend that the suit is not maintainable as it challenges the grant of the suit schedule property to the late husband of Defendant No. 1 after a lapse of 40 years from the date of the grant, which was made in 1973. The plaintiffs dispute the defendants' title, alleging that the documents were fabricated in collusion with revenue authorities, leading to the mutation of khatas in the name of Defendant No. 1, the wife of the original grantee. However, the defendants argue that a declaratory suit, along with a consequential relief of injunction, cannot be sustained in the absence of any specifically pleaded right of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

2) Hari Ram -vs- Jyoti Prasad and Anr. - (AIR 2011 SC

952);

3) Madho Singh and others -vs- Moni Singh (D) by L.Rs and others (AIR 2004 SCC 4316).

4) Lingam Ramaseshayya v. Myneni Ramayya and Ors ( AIR 1957 AP 964).

Issues

6. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly noted. The issues that arise for consideration are as follows:

6.1. Whether the plaintiffs can maintain a claim for negative declaration, asserting that the title and ownership of the suit schedule property rests with the government, in the absence of a categorical pleading in the plaint demonstrating any vested or particular interest of the plaintiffs in the said property?

In other words, whether the cause of action, as set out in the plaint, adequately satisfies the requisites of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to sustain the plaintiffs' suit for a negative declaration of ownership in favor of the government?

NC: 2025:KHC:11977 6.2. Whether the title and ownership of the suit schedule property, granted in favor of Defendant No. 1 in 1973, can be challenged in a suit for declaration instituted on 28.09.2022, after a lapse of forty years? In other words, whether the present suit is barred by the law of limitation?

21.1. However, in the present case, the suit seeks a declaration of title in favor of the Government. The plaint does not reveal that the property in question was either gomal land or land reserved for public purposes, or property belonging to a public trust prior to or during the subsistence of the grant. The plaintiffs have merely sought a negative declaration in favor of the Government without establishing any public right of their own over the suit property.

21.2. Thus, when the plaint fails to disclose any infringement of a legal right vested in the plaintiffs, the