Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act in property disputes: Akkamma vs Vemavathi (2021) INSC 724

Date of the Judgment: 25 November 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 724

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Aniruddha Bose, J.

Can a person be denied a declaration of ownership of a property if they fail to prove possession, even when they have sought an injunction against interference? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, clarifying the interpretation of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which a suit for declaration of title can be maintained even if the plaintiff fails to prove possession of the property, provided they have also sought consequential relief.
The bench, comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose, delivered the judgment. Justice Aniruddha Bose authored the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves a property dispute in Vibhuthipura Village, Bangalore. Arakeri Abbaiah, the original plaintiff, filed a suit in 1987 seeking a declaration of ownership and an injunction against interference with his possession of a 10.54 guntas land. He claimed to have purchased the land from Papaiah in 1972. The defendants, including Muniyappa (the plaintiff’s father-in-law), contested the claim, asserting their own title. Prior to this suit, the original plaintiff had filed another suit in 1982 involving the same property, which was dismissed as he could not establish his lawful possession. The 1987 suit was filed after alleged interference by the defendants on February 15 and 25, 1987.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The original plaintiff’s 1982 suit for perpetual injunction was dismissed by the Trial Court, a decision upheld by the High Court of Karnataka on 25th November, 1986. Subsequently, the 1987 suit was filed. The Trial Court dismissed this suit on 7th November, 1997. The High Court initially allowed an appeal, remanding the matter back to the Trial Court. After remand, the Trial Court again dismissed the suit on 18th December, 2004, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove possession and that the suit was also time-barred. The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal against this decision on 21st July, 2008. During the appeal, the plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint to include a prayer for possession, which was rejected by the High Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which deals with the court’s discretion in granting declaratory decrees. The section states:

“Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right. – Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:
Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.”

The Court also considered the principle that a person who can seek further relief but omits to do so cannot obtain a mere declaration. The Court also referred to Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with the principle that a plaintiff must include all claims arising from the same cause of action in one suit.

Arguments

Appellants’ (Plaintiffs’) Submissions:

• The appellants argued that the suit should not have been dismissed because they had claimed both declaration of title and injunctive relief.
• They contended that since the Trial Court had found them to be the owners of the property, possession should have been presumed.
• The appellants relied on the principle that possession follows title, especially in cases of vacant land.
• They also argued that the bar under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, does not apply when consequential relief like injunction is claimed.
• They submitted that the High Court erred in rejecting their plea for amendment to include the relief of possession.

Respondents’ (Defendants’) Submissions:

• The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their possession of the suit property.
• They contended that the plaintiffs’ earlier suit for injunction had been dismissed, and they had not established how they came into possession after that.
• They argued that since the plaintiffs were not in possession, they were not entitled to an injunction.
• They supported the High Court’s decision to reject the amendment application for including a prayer for possession.
• They submitted that the suit was barred by limitation and the principle under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants innovatively argued that the bar under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, does not apply when consequential relief like injunction is claimed. They also contended that the Trial Court’s finding of ownership should have led to a presumption of possession.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the suit for declaration of title was maintainable when the plaintiff failed to prove possession but had claimed consequential relief of injunction.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in rejecting the plea for amendment of the plaint to include the relief of possession.
3. Whether the suit was barred by limitation and the principle under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in M. K. Rappai and Ors. vs. John and Ors. [(1969 (2) SCC 590]*, 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]* that a bare declaration of right is not maintainable if further relief could have been sought.
• The Supreme Court overruled the High Court of Karnataka’s decision in Sri Aralappa vs. Sri Jagannath & others (ILR 2007 Kar 339)* which held that a suit for declaration and injunction is not maintainable if the plaintiff is not in possession and fails to seek recovery of possession. The Supreme Court held that this view was not good law.
• The Supreme Court distinguished the cases of Devish vs. M.K. Subbiah and Ors. (AIR 1970 Mys 249)* and Navalram Laxmidas Devmurari vs. Vijayaben Jayvantbhai Chavda (AIR 1998 Guj 17)* as in those cases, the courts had come to an affirmative finding about the plaintiffs’ possession of the suit property.
• The Supreme Court followed the decision in Venkataraja and Ors. vs. Vidyane Doureradjaperumal (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Ors. [(2014) 14 SCC 502]* which held that a party can seek amendment to include unsought relief if it is saved by limitation.
• The Supreme Court referred to M. Krishnaswamy’s “Law of Adverse Possession” (12th Edition) for explanation of possession and its ingredients.
• The Supreme Court interpreted Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Court emphasized that the proviso to Section 34 applies only when the sole relief sought is a declaration without any consequential relief. In this case, since the plaintiff had also sought an injunction, the suit could not be dismissed solely on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove possession. The Court also considered the fact that the Trial Court had found the original plaintiff to be the owner of the suit property. While the Court agreed that the plaintiff had failed to prove possession and was not entitled to an injunction, it held that the plaintiff was still entitled to a declaration of ownership. The Court also considered that the plea for amendment was made at a late stage and was barred by limitation.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the High Court’s view that the suit was not maintainable because the plaintiff had not sought the relief of possession. The Court held that the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is not applicable when consequential relief has been claimed. The Court clarified that the bar under the proviso to Section 34 applies only if the sole relief sought is a declaration without any consequential relief. The Court also held that the suit was not barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the 1987 suit was based on new incidents of interference. The Court, however, upheld the rejection of the amendment plea due to limitation.

The Supreme Court observed:

“The prohibition contained in the proviso to Section 34 would operate only if the sole relief is for declaration without any consequential relief.”

“If on evidence the plaintiff fails on consequential relief, the suit may be dismissed on merit so far as plea for consequential relief is concerned but not on maintainability question invoking the proviso to Section 34 of the 1963 Act.”

“There is no bar in the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in granting standalone declaratory decree.”

The Court held that even if the plaintiff fails to establish their claim for consequential relief, the suit should not be dismissed on the ground of maintainability if the suit includes a prayer for consequential relief. The Court also held that a declaratory decree can be granted even if it is non-executable.

Key Takeaways

• A suit for declaration of title is maintainable even if the plaintiff fails to prove possession, provided they have also sought consequential relief like an injunction.
• The proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, applies only when the sole relief sought is a declaration without any consequential relief.
• The principle that possession follows title is not applicable when the plaintiff has admitted possession and use of the land by the defendant.
• A plea for amendment of the plaint to include the relief of possession must be made within the prescribed limitation period.
• A declaratory decree can be granted even if it is non-executable.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that they are the owners of the suit property, and a decree to that effect shall be issued.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, holding that a suit for declaration of title is maintainable even if the plaintiff fails to prove possession, provided they have also sought consequential relief. This judgment overrules the Karnataka High Court’s view in Sri Aralappa vs. Sri Jagannath & others (ILR 2007 Kar 339)* that a suit for declaration and injunction is not maintainable if the plaintiff is not in possession and fails to seek recovery of possession. The ratio decidendi of this case is that the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, applies only when the sole relief is for declaration without consequential relief.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Akkamma vs. Vemavathi clarifies that a suit for declaration of title is maintainable even if the plaintiff fails to prove possession, provided they have also sought consequential relief like an injunction. The Court upheld the rejection of the plea for amendment of the plaint to include the relief of possession due to limitation. While the Court denied the injunctive relief due to the failure to prove possession, it granted the declaration of ownership to the plaintiffs. This ruling provides clarity on the interpretation of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and its application in property disputes.