In Brief
The appellants sought declaration of ownership of immovable property and injunction against interference. The Trial Court found ownership proven but rejected injunction and declaration because the plaintiffs failed to establish possession. The High Court upheld dismissal, holding that without claiming relief for recovery of possession, the suit was not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Supreme Court held that the proviso to Section 34 does not apply when consequential relief (injunction) is claimed alongside declaration. Since ownership was proven and no bar exists to grant declaration, the Court set aside the dismissal on this point. The appeal was partly allowed, granting declaration of ownership but sustaining the denial of injunctive relief."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.