Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. The other contention is that the transfer of title by the first plaintiff in favour of the second plaintiff during the pendency of the suit which did not belong to him, cannot affect the rights of the defendants.

18. The reliefs prayed in the plaint cannot be granted as reliefs which expressly or impliedly barred by the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act and in view of deletion of the prayer for declaration of title, when clearly cloud was thrown on title on the very averments of the plaintiff, the present suit is not maintainable.

Point Nos.2 and 3 :-

49. The contention of the appellant in RFA No.844/2007 that there was no pleading and also issue was not framed with regard to the considering the title of the parties and there was a cloud on the title of the plaintiff and the defendants also asserts title in respect of the suit schedule property and there is also a threat of dispossession as narrated in the plaint and when such being the case, the plaintiff ought to have sought the relief of declaration. Hence, the very approach of the trial Court is erroneous.

52. Having considered the pleadings of the plaintiff, it is clear that the defendants have made the claim in O.S.No.10548/1983 in respect of the suit schedule property. When the pleading has been made in the plaint that the defendants have claimed and asserts their title in respect of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff ought to have sought the relief of declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and the same has not been done and the relief sought only to declare the katha made in favour of defendants is illegal. The very pleadings discloses that there is a cloud on the title of the plaintiff and when such being the case, the plaintiff ought to have sought the better relief of declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. It has to be noted that the judgment of the trial Court is appears to be under confusion. The Court below while answering issue Nos.3, 4 and 5 as held in para No.14 that the prayer of declaration was deleted at the instance of the plaintiff vide order dated 04.02.1998. The Court below while considering the other issues with regard to the possession and injunction in para No.17 has formed an opinion after discussing the material on record, an observation is made that without any hesitation, the Court held that the plaintiffs have utterly failed to prove their lawful possession over the suit schedule property. As on the date of the suit and also held that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any declaratory relief either against defendant No.1 or against defendant Nos.2 to 8 and further held that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction or mandatory injunction as prayed in the plaint. It has to be noted that when the plaintiffs did not seek for the better relief of declaration, the trial Court ought to have held that the very suit itself is not maintainable when there was a cloud on the title of the plaintiffs. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for defendants, which was in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs. P.Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs and others reported in MANU/SC/7376/2008, wherein the Apex Court while answering issue with regard to between the parties, whether considering the facts of the case, the plaintiffs ought to have filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction, considering the said issue in para No.11.3 and it is held that where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction. It is further observed that the prayer for declaration will be necessary only if the denial of the title by the defendants are challenged to plaintiffs. Title raises a cloud on the title of the plaintiff to the property. The cloud said to raise over a person title when some approved difficult in his title to the property or some prima-facie right of third party over. It is made out to shown an action for declaration is the remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property.

54. The Court below also while answering other issues comes to a conclusion that the defendants are claiming right based on that Exhibits D.2 to 6. It has to be noted that the defendants at the 1st instance, in the written statement claimed except claiming right based on the suit, which was filed earlier against the Corporation. But, in the additional written statement claimed the title in respect of the suit schedule property based on the sale deeds Exs.D.4 to 6 dated 20.04.1941, 13.12.1950 and 09.09.1954. The Court below discussed with regard to the documents of the plaintiffs in respect of Exs.P.1 to 4 and also Ex.P.28 and also considered the Exs.D.1 to 6 measurement and formed opinion that both of them have not proved their claim. The same ought not have been considered by the trial Court, that too in a suit for bare injunction and also there was a specific pleading in the plaint that there was a cloud on the title of the plaintiffs and defendants asserts their right in respect of the very same property. When such being the case, the trial Court ought not have proceeded to consider the case of the plaintiffs and also the defendants in the absence of declaratory relief. Apart from that, in order to seek for declaratory relief also, the plaintiff has to pay the Court Fee and the same has not been done. Hence, I am of the opinion that the Court below ought to have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as not maintainable as there was a cloud on the title of the plaintiff. In the absence of better relief of declaration as held by the Apex Court, the principles laid down in the judgment referred by defendant Nos.2 to 6, are aptly applicable to the case on hand, since there was no any pleading and prayer in the plaint for declaration and no necessary issues with regard to title and claim of the defendants the trial Court also ought not to have considered the claim of both plaintiffs and defendants in the absence of declaratory suit. Hence, I answer both point No.2 as negative and point No.3 as affirmative that in the absence of declaratory relief, the Court below committed an error in entertaining the suit which is not maintainable.