Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The defendant No.2 filed additional written statement contending that the plaintiffs under the amended plaint are unrighteously claiming a decree to declare that they are entitled to obtain allotment of alternative sites in terms of the order dated 17.3.2005 passed in WP.5405-24/2005 and also to grant a negative declaration that he has no manner of right or title over the suit schedule properties. They misconstrued and tenor of the order dated 17.3.2005 referred to in the prayer column.

Interestingly in order to avoid payment of required Court Fee the plaintiffs have made their declaration relief in such a way to declare that they being the erstwhile owners of their respective items of the suit schedule properties are entitled to obtain allotment of alternative sites. There is no positive prayer for declaration of the plaintiffs' alleged ownership over the suit schedule properties instead of requesting the Court to declare their ownership the plaintiffs themselves are declaring them as being the erstwhile owners of their respective items of the suit schedule properties. More interestingly their negative declaration is that defendant No.2 has no manner of right or title over the suit schedule properties in so far as plaintiffs are concerned they declare themselves that they are being the erstwhile owners. On the other hand, whiel coming to the rights of him, they want a negative declaration that he has no manner of right or title over the suit schedule properties. The prayer made at prayer column © in the plaint is improper and same is not in accordance with law. The prayer sought for is required to be disallowed.