Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (7.75 seconds)Vinay Krishna vs Keshav Chandra And Another on 6 March, 1992
While in a situation of this nature, amendment of plaint
could be asked for (Vinay Krishna vs. Keshav Chandra and Anr.),
such a plea ought to have been made within the prescribed limitation
period.
Ram Saran And Anr. vs Smt. Ganga Devi on 17 April, 1972
………a bare declaration of right will be within the mischief
of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and Section 34 of
the Specific Relief Act, 1963.”
Same proposition of law has been followed in Ram Saran and
Anr. vs. Smt. Ganga Devi [(1973) 2 SCC 60], Vinay Krishna vs.
Keshav Chandra and Anr. [(1993) Supp 3 SCC 129] and Anathula
Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRS. And Ors. [(2008) 4
SCC 594].
Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008
………a bare declaration of right will be within the mischief
of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and Section 34 of
the Specific Relief Act, 1963.”
Same proposition of law has been followed in Ram Saran and
Anr. vs. Smt. Ganga Devi [(1973) 2 SCC 60], Vinay Krishna vs.
Keshav Chandra and Anr. [(1993) Supp 3 SCC 129] and Anathula
Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRS. And Ors. [(2008) 4
SCC 594].
Navalram Laxmidas Devmurari vs Vijayaben Jayvantbhai Chavda on 10 April, 1997
In both the two reported decisions in the cases of Devish (supra) and
Navalram Laxmidas Devmurari (supra) referred to earlier, the first
two Courts – being the Courts of fact had come to affirmative finding
about the plaintiffs’ possession of the suit property. So far as the
proceeding before us is concerned, the finding of the First Court is
otherwise. The plaintiffs sought to introduce prayer for recovery of
possession to cure the defect of not having made out a case on that
count by way of amendment of plaint at the appellate stage. The High
Court rejected this prayer. We have quoted earlier in this judgment the
reason for such rejection. We are in agreement with the High Court on
this point.
Venkataraja & Ors vs Vidyane ... on 10 April, 2013
This position of law has been clarified in the case of
Venkataraja and Ors. vs. Vidyane Doureradjaperumal (Dead)
Through Legal Representatives and Ors. [ (2014) 14 SCC 502]. In
this case, it has been held:
12
“24. A mere declaratory decree remains nonexecutable in most
cases generally. However, there is no prohibition upon a party
from seeking an amendment in the plaint to include the
unsought relief, provided that it is saved by limitation.
However, it is obligatory on the part of the defendants to raise
the issue at the earliest.
Parkash Chand Khurana Etc vs Harnam Singh & Ors on 28 March, 1973
State Of M.P. vs Mangilal Sharma on 18 December, 1997
15. We agree with that part of the decision of the High Court in
which it has been held that possession of the suit property was not
established by the plaintiffs and hence injunctive relief could not be
granted. As we have already recorded, we are also in agreement with
the High Court’s reasoning for rejecting the plea for amendment. But
we do not agree fully with the entire reasoning of the High Court for
dismissal of the appeal as spelt out in the said judgment. The bar
contained in proviso to Section 34 of the 1963 Act, in our opinion,
could not be applied in the case of the plaintiffs as consequential relief
for injunction from interference with the suitland was claimed. The
prohibition contained in the proviso to Section 34 would operate only
if the sole relief is for declaration without any consequential relief. In
the plaint of the 1987 suit, relief for injunction was asked for. Such
dual relief would protect the suit from being dismissed on
maintainability ground. It is a fact that the plaintiff ought to have had
asked for recovery of possession, given the factual background of this
case, but the plaint as it was originally framed reflected that the
13
original plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. Such plea rightly
failed before the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Sri Aralappa Son Of Sri Chowrappa, Major vs Sri Jagannath Son Of Late Sri Chikka ... on 24 August, 2006
9. The High Court’s opinion was based on the reasoning contained
in an earlier decision of the same High Court, the case of Sri Aralappa
vs. Sri Jagannath & others (ILR 2007 Kar 339). In this judgment, it
was held:
“31. Even if the plaintiff comes to Court asserting that he is in
possession and that if it is found after trial that he was not in
possession on the date of the suit, even then, the suit for
declaration and permanent injunction is liable to be dismissed
as not maintainable, as no decree for permanent injunction can
be granted if the plaintiff is not in possession on the date of the
suit. In such circumstances, it is necessary for the plaintiff to
amend the plaint before the judgment and seek relief of
possession. Therefore, a suit for declaration of title and
permanent injunction, by the plaintiff who is not in possession
on the date of the suit, when he is able to seek further relief of
recovery of possession also, omits to do so, the Court shall not
make any such declaration and the suit is liable to be
dismissed as not maintainable”.