Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

CS No.58819/16 Sant Kumar Gandhi Vs. Jagdish Gandhi Page No. 39 of 65 14.13. Reference is made to the cross-examination of the defendants. It is submitted that the defendants have admitted in their cross-examination that there was an oral settlement during the lifetime of the mother.

14.14. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has further submitted that the argument of the defendants that the suit is bad since no consequential relief of possession has been sought is misplaced. It is submitted that at the time when the suit was filed, the plaintiff was in possession of the entire property. It is submitted that it is only in the course of the contempt proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court that the defendant came in possession of part of the property which was during the pendency of the suit only and hence, the plaintiff did not have occasion to seek possession at the time of the filing of the suit. It is further submitted that in any case apart from the relief of the negative declaration sought by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has also sought an injunction which is a consequential relief and even as such, the suit would not be hit by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.

185. Negative declaration is not maintainable. Even if assuming that the declaration sought by the plaintiff is granted against the defendants, it will not affect the rights and liabilities of the plaintiff as the same are independent. The rights of the plaintiff are not dependent upon declaration of title of the defendants. The suit for negative declaration is not permissible under the law as the plaintiff can claim only that right which is vested in him but cannot alternatively seek a declaration that no right is vested in the defendants. The plaintiff in the present suit instead of seeking declaration of his ownership qua the suit property, when the suit property is still in the name of the mother of parties, has sought a negative prayer for declaration which is not maintainable.