Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

25. Similarly in Indian Bank also the Supreme Court was concerned with the transfer of civil suit to the DRT.

26. Though in deciding the different issue which arose for adjudication in Nahar and in Indian Bank certain observations came to be made but the same have to be read in the context of what was for decision in the said judgment and cannot even be termed as obiter of the Supreme Court qua the matter at hand.

27. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 enables any person entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any property to institute a suit, against a person denying or interested to deny his title to such character or right, for a declaration that he is so entitled. It has been held in Lachhman Das Vs. Arjan Singh MANU/PH/0477/1962 and Narhar Raj Vs. Tirupathybibi MANU/AP/1380/2002 that under the said provision negative declaration can also be claimed. It is thus possible, under the said Section 34 to sue for a declaration that the plaintiff is free of debt. Moreover it has been held in V. Ramaraghava Reddy Vs. K. Seshu Reddy AIR 196 7 SC 436, Supreme General Films Exchange Ltd. Vs. His Highness Maharaja Sir Brijnath Singhji Deo of Maihar (1975) 2 SCC 530 that Section 34 is not the sole repository for the relief of declaration. That being the legal position, it would be open to every person against whom a bank or financial institution may have a claim for recovery of a debt, to sue in a Civil Court on the same grounds on which he may have a defence before the DRT to such claim of a bank / financial institution, for declaration that he is not a debtor of the bank / financial institution and is not liable to pay any amount to the bank / financial institution. If it were to be thus held that both, the Civil Court as well as the DRT would have jurisdiction to decide whether a person against whom a bank / financial institution has a claim as a debtor, is in fact a debtor or not and / or is liable to pay the amount claimed by the bank or not, the possibility of a conflicting finding being rendered by the Civil Court and the DRT cannot be ruled out and in which case the finding of the Civil Court will prevail over the finding of the DRT as has been held at least by this Court in Cofex Exports Ltd. vs Canara Bank AIR 1997 Delhi 355. I have also held so in Sunayana Malhotra Vs. ICICI Bank 163 (2009) DLT 602 though in the context of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).