Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)Section 34 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Md. Mohammad Ali (Dead) By Lrs vs Sri Jagadish Kalita & Ors on 7 October, 2003
Reliance is placed on the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Md. Mohammad Vs. Jagdish
Kalita & Ors., reported in (2004)1 Supreme Court Cases
221 (Paragraphs 20 & 21) wherein it is held that plaintiff
seeking declaration of title would succeed possession not
required to be proved referring to Article 65 of the
Limitation Act, 1963. I find much substance in the
submission of the plaintiff-respondent. Moreover, the said
issue also does not appear to have been pressed in the
Court below. The plaintiff sought declaration of title over
the suit land alleging that a could was created over his
title on account of execution of the sale deed dated
03.03.2004 (Exhibit-6) by the defendant no. 1 only, and
as such, the person who were not executants of the said
deed was not required in law to be made a party. The suit
as such cannot be held to be bad for non-joinder of
parties. Similarly also the suit cannot be held bad in
terms of Order 23 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure
as the plaintiff was not challenging the compromise which
Patna High Court FA No.210 of 2007
-25-
according to defendants had taken place in the earlier
suit. The plaintiff was seeking a declaration of his title,
and as such, all the contentions of the appellant are
devoid of any merit. As regards the limitation, the same
also does not appear to have been pressed in the Court
below. The question of limitation being mixed question of
fact and law necessitates consideration of evidence to
decide the issue, cannot be decided in this appeal and the
submission that the suit was barred by limitation is not
acceptable.
State Of U. P vs Manbodhan Lal Srivastava on 20 September, 1957
In this connection reliance
has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the
case of State of U.P. Vs. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, as
reported in A.I.R. 1957 (SC) 912 (Paragraph 3). Moreover,
the document sought to be produced claiming right, title
by virtue of the compromise could be by the concerned
defendants and not the purchaser. The judgement and
decree under the appeal has not been challenged by the
concerned defendants, and as such, the prayer of the
appellant, the purchaser of the suit property, cannot be
allowed.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Vinay Krishna vs Keshav Chandra And Another on 6 March, 1992
21. To summarize the evidence on the record, oral
as also documentary, brought on record by the respective
parties, as noticed above, the plaintiffs have successfully
established their title and possession over the suit land
and entitled to the declaration of title as prayed for. The
contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that
the suit was bad in terms of Section 34 of the Specific
Relief Act as no decree for declaration of title as prayed for
could had been passed in absence of further relief of
possession which was required to be claimed. Reliance is
placed on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of
Vinay Krishna Vs Keshav Chandra & Anr., reported in
A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 957. The said decision differs materially
on facts since in the said case admittedly person other
Patna High Court FA No.210 of 2007
-24-
than the plaintiffs were in possession. Learned counsel for
the respondent had submitted that the prayer of the
plaintiff was for declaration of their title as he was already
in possession of the suit land, and as such, further relief
was not required.
1