In Brief
A plaintiff purchased property through a chain of sale deeds but sought only a declaration that he owned it and a mandatory injunction, without claiming possession. The trial court and appellate court dismissed the suit because the plaintiff was not in possession, the necessary party (Janaki Ammal, who owned part of the survey) was not impleaded, and the title was not proven. The High Court reversed this and decreed the suit. The Supreme Court held that a suit for mere declaration without claiming recovery of possession is not maintainable when the plaintiff is not in possession and can seek such relief. The High Court erred in reversing concurrent findings and in granting relief for property standing in the name of an unimpleaded party. The appeal was allowed and the lower courts' judgments were restored."}
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.