Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. A suit for the relief of declaration simplicitor is not maintainable as per the mandate contained in Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. If the suit is filed for declaration of title over an immovable property and for the consequential relief of either possession or injunctions, if it is said that still Article 58 governs, it does not stand to reason, nay appears to be somewhat odd. A suit for possession or a suit for perpetual injunction obviously is governed by the relevant Article in Part-V of the first division when that suit pertains to immovable property. Article 58, in my considered view, will not fall foul of Article 65 of the Act. In the event of any inconsistency in between the two Articles mentioned in the Schedule, the endeavour of the Court shall be to give a harmonious construction having due regard to the scheme and object of the Act.

14. The situation seems to be no more res integra. In Pavan Kumar v. K. Gopala Krishna 1990 (1) APLJ (HC) 185 at page 189 : AIR 1990 NOC 123 (AP), S.S.M. Quadri, J (as His Lordship then was) had taken the view thus :

Where a suit is filed based on title but claiming declaration of title to the suit property with consequential relief of possession Article 65 of the Limitation Act would apply and Article 58 would have no application : Article 58 applies only to a case where declaration simplicitor is sought, that is, without further relief.