Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

g) Interest

h) Costs;

i) Further and other reliefs.

3. The grounds in the application for rejection of plaint were: first, that prayer (e) of the plaint, which was the principal relief, was barred under Article 56 of the Limitation Act, 1963, particularly in view of the averments in paragraph no. 14 of the plaint; secondly, that prayer

(b) of the plaint was barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, particularly since negative declaration was not permissible; and thirdly, that prayer (a) of the plaint was barred by the principle of res judicata.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner next argues that relief (b) of the plaint seeks a negative declaration, which is barred by law.

9. It is contended further that the plaintiff has claimed merely possessory title, which is not maintainable in law, particularly in view of absence of proper pleadings to support it.

10. Lastly, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Section 43 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, which has also been relied on in the plaint (more particularly, in paragraph nos. 2 and 3 of the plaint), could not confer any right on the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1, since the plaintiff was allegedly registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, and became a juristic entity in the eye of law, only on December 18, 1976, while the said amended section came into force subsequently, only on January 17, 1977.

31. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the question of limitation is arguable and, as such, ought to be decided at the stage of trial on evidence.

32. The other argument of the petitioner as to the suit being barred, in view of a negative declaration having been sought by way of relief b), cannot be accepted, since the said relief does not stand in isolation but has to be decided in conjunction with the other reliefs, in particular relief a).