[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Meja Bala Singh Aged About 69 Years vs Ranglal Singh on 6 January, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2026:JHHC:419
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 72 of 2024
1. Meja Bala Singh aged about 69 years, W/o Late Hondra Singh
2. Guhiram Singh, aged about 32 years, S/o Late Hondra Singh
3. Gobardhan Singh, aged about 26 years, S/o Late Hondra Singh
All R/o Village- Rupsan, P.O Chhota Bangurda, P.S- Boram(Patamda),
District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand
...... Appellants/Respondents/Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Ranglal Singh, S/o Late Tilak Singh
2. Birbal Singh, S/o Late Tilak Singh
3. Jamini Kanto, S/o Late Kintu Singh
All R/o Village- Rupsan, P.O- Chhota Bangurda, P.S.- Boram (Patamda),
District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand
... ... Respondents/Appellants/defendant
4. Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East at Jamshedpur, P.O + P.S-
Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand
... ... Proforma Respondent/Proforma respondent/Proforma
defendant
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Advocate
: Mr. Atif Anwar, Advocate
For the Respondents : None
---
Lastly, heard on 11.12.2025 Pronounced on 06th January, 2026
1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated
19.03.2024 (decree signed on 30.03.2024) passed by learned District
Judge-V, Jamshedpur in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2023 reversing the
judgment dated 31.03.2023 (decree signed on 05.04.2023) passed by
learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in
Original Suit No. 19 of 2020.
2. The original suit was decreed by the learned trial court and the
judgment and decree passed in original suit was reversed by the
learned 1st appellate court. Consequently, the plaintiffs are the
appellants before this Court.
3. The original suit was filed for following reliefs: -
a) For decree declaring that the sale deed executed by Khada
Bala Singh in favour of the defendants 1,2 and 3 in respect of
the schedule land which has been registered at District Sub
2026:JHHC:419
Registry Office at Jamshedpur bearing deed No. 1834 dated
18.03.2009 is illegal, null and void, inoperative and not
binding on plaintiffs.
b) For cost and interest of the suit.
c) For any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs will be
found entitled in law and equity.
4. The counsel for the appellants has submitted that the suit was filed
seeking a declaration that registered sale dated 18.03.2009 was null
and void and was liable to be cancelled. By the said deed, the sale
deed was executed by Khandu Bala Singh in favour of defendant Nos.
1, 2, and 3.
5. He submits that the suit property was recorded in the name of Hari
Singh and Bhandu Singh, both were sons of Joy Singh. Ram Singh
had two sons Abhi Singh and Hondra Singh. The plaintiffs are the
widow and sons of Hondra Singh. He submits that Abhi Singh did not
have any son, but had three married daughters and the defendants are
the sons-in-law of Abhi Singh. The vendor of the property namely
Khandu Bala Singh was the widow of Abhi Singh.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there are
concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts that the parties are
governed by customary law and Hindu law has no applicability. He
submits that under the customary law the daughters do not inherit the
property, and therefore, sale by widow of Abhi Singh to her three
sons-in-law is void and illegal. He submits that the suit was decreed
but the learned 1st Appellate Court has reversed the finding on the
ground that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 34 of the
Specific Relief Act and the plaintiffs did not seek recovery of
possession from the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 who were the sons-in
law of Abhi Singh. The learned counsel submits that the case of the
plaintiffs was that the suit property was never delivered to defendant
nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the plaintiffs were still in possession and that the
registered sale deed dated 18.03.2009 executed by the widow of Abhi
Singh in favour of defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 (her three sons-in-law)
was never acted upon. However, the widow of Abhi Singh had
expired two years prior to filing of the title suit. The learned counsel
has submitted that since the plaintiffs were in possession, the suit was
2026:JHHC:419
wrongly held to be barred by section 34 of Specific Relief Act. He
submits that a substantial question of law be framed and decided by
this court.
7. The case of the plaintiffs:-
a. The suit was filed by wife and sons of Hondra Singh seeking a
declaration that the sale deed was executed by Khandu Bala
Singh in favour of defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 by registered sale
deed dated 18.03.2009, was illegal, null and void, inoperative
and not binding on plaintiffs.
b. It was the specific case of the plaintiffs that the suit land along
with some other land in Khatiyan no. 191 were recorded in the
name of Ram Singh finally published in the year 1964 and the
land under khata no. 2 was recorded in the name of Hari Singh
and Bhandu Singh both sons of Joy Singh one share and Ram
Singh one share. Hari Singh died issueless. Bhandu Singh and
Ram Singh partitioned their land amicably in the life-time of
Ram Singh around 45 years back. Bhandu Singh was alive but
he was not made party in the suit by stating that he had no right,
title, interest and possession with respect to the suit land.
c. Ram Singh was under peaceful possession of the land under
Khata No. 191 and his share under Khata no. 2 till his death,
and after his death his two sons namely Abhi Singh and Hondra
Singh jointly came in possession and the land were jointly
recorded in their name. There has been no partition by metes
and bounds between Abhi Singh and Hondra Singh.
d. Abhi Singh died leaving behind his widow and three daughters.
The married daughters of Abhi Singh and Hondra Singh were
not made parties either as plaintiffs or defendants stating that
the married daughters have no right, title, interest and
possession or share in the ancestral land according to their
customary law. It was the specific case of the plaintiffs that the
parties belong to Scheduled tribes and are guided by their own
customary law in the matter of succession and inheritance and
they are not guided by Hindu law.
2026:JHHC:419
e. It was further case of the plaintiffs that Khandu Bala Singh died
about 2 years prior to filing of the suit. In the Shradh ceremony,
which was performed in the house of the plaintiffs, defendant
Nos. 1, 2, and 3 had also participated and at that time defendant
Nos. 1, 2 and 3 along with other relatives requested the
plaintiffs to allow the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to stay in the
village for a few days and the plaintiffs allowed them to stay
and allowed the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to cultivate some
portion of the land friendly for one year.
f. The plaintiffs alleged that in the year 2013, the defendants
whispered that they have purchased some portion of the land
from their mother-in-law namely Khandu Bala Singh and
thereafter, the plaintiffs after obtaining certified copy of the
deed came to learn on 12.09.2013 that Khandu Bala Singh had
sold the suit land to defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 by registered sale
deed dated 18.03.2009 without prior consent of the plaintiffs,
who claimed to be the co-sharers of Khandu Bala Singh. It was
the case of the plaintiffs that neither Khandu Bala Singh had
any right to sell the suit land nor the possession of the suit land
was delivered to the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the plaintiffs
claimed to be still in possession, and therefore, claimed that the
sale deed was not acted upon.
g. It was asserted that Khandu Bala Singh belonged to a joint
family and was a tribal widow. Therefore, she had no right to
sell the joint landed properties, but she could claim
maintenance and cannot sell any portion of the joint family
properties without the previous consent of other coparcener.
The cause of action arose on 18.03.2009, 1st day of August,
2013 and lastly 12.09.2013 when the plaintiffs learn about the
sale and upon getting certified copy of the deed.
8. The case of the defendants:-
I. The suit was contested by the defendants and it was asserted
that the suit was barred by Specific Relief Act, Code of Civil
Procedure, Transfer of Property Act and other Act.
2026:JHHC:419
II. It was asserted that Ram Singh died leaving behind his two sons
Abhi Singh and Hundra Singh @ Labkishor Singh. Hundra
Singh sold the land measuring 0.33 acres recorded in Khata No.
191 plot no. 411 to Hrishikesh Kora by registered sale deed No.
377 dated 02.07.2002, after obtaining permission under Section
46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act from the LRDC,
Dhalbhum, vide Misc Case No. 100/2001-02 dated 01.07.2002.
III. Abhi Singh died leaving behind his widow Khandu Bala Singh,
who being the legal heir and successor of late Abhi Singh,
inherited the share of land belonging to late Abhi Singh after
partition of the same and sold her share to the defendants after
obtaining necessary permission under Section 46 Chhotanagpur
Tenancy Act, in Misc Case No. 90/2008-09.
IV. Further, the daughters of late Abhi Singh were not made party
in the suit. Moreover, Bhondu Singh was also not made party
and therefore, it was alleged that the suit was bad for non-
joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. It was asserted that
Abhi Singh got his land partitioned from the other co-sharers
and he was living separately from the plaintiffs and other co-
sharers, and he died leaving behind his widow, Khandu Bala
Singh and daughters, who were in possession of the suit
property and have inherited the same.
V. It was asserted that the defendants have acquired valid right,
title, interest and confirmed their possession over the suit
property which is binding upon the plaintiffs who had no locus
standi to challenge the same and there was no cause of action
on 18.03.2009 or on 12.09.2013.
9. The proforma defendant no.4 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, East
Singhbhum had also filed a written statement by stating that the suit
of the plaintiffs was not maintainable and was barred under the
provisions of non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties and the
plaintiffs have no cause of action. It was also asserted that the suit was
barred by limitation, Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, BLR Act and
Specific Relief Act and no notice was served under Section 80 of
2026:JHHC:419
C.P.C by the plaintiffs before filing the suit. It was asserted that the
plaintiffs and defendants belongs to the scheduled tribe and the
Deputy Commissioner was a necessary party and it was also asserted
that plaintiffs did not claim any relief against answering defendant and
the plaintiffs were to prove their case by producing documentary
evidence.
10.The following issues were framed by the learned Court:-
(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and has
proper cause of action?
(ii) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?
(iii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?
(iv) Whether the suit is barred by estoppels, waiver,
acquiescence and under the provisions of CNT Act and
specific relief Act?
(v) Whether the sale deed executed by the Vendor Khandu Bala
Singh in favour of defendant no. 1, 2 and 3 is valid
documents and whether it has got binding nature upon the
plaintiff?
(vi) Whether the parties are governed by their customary law in
the matter of succession?
(vii) Whether the Khandu Bala Singh being widow of Lt. Abhi
Singh has right to transfer the ancestral landed properties
in favour of the defendants without necessity?
(viii) Are the plaintiff entitled to for reliefs as claimed for?
11. The plaintiffs led oral and documentary evidence and the defendants
led oral evidence.
12. The issue nos. (v), (vi), (vii) and (viii) were taken up together. It was
clear from the pleadings that both the parties belong to the scheduled
tribe and were guided by their customary law in the matter of
successions and inheritance and not guided by the Hindu law, and
ultimately decided the issue No.(vi) in affirmative.
13. The learned trial Court observed that it is the established practice
amongst the tribes that when the deceased leaves no son but only a
childless widow or a widow with daughters only, the widow is
allowed a life interest in the property left by her husband, and the
widow may be temporarily lessee of the property left by her husband
but has no authority to sell any property left by her husband without
the consent of agnates of her deceased husband.
2026:JHHC:419
14.The learned Trial Court recorded that as per the sale deed the vendor
belonged to the tribe "Bhumij" and the plaintiffs belonged to Sarna
Faith and the parties were governed by customary laws and the
customary laws for tribal women confers only life interest upon
women and the only exception to this is if the tribe is sufficiently
hinduised. The trial court further observed that in the present case the
defendants have not brought any cogent evidences to demolish the
fact that the customs applicable to the vendor in the present case were
different from the general customary practice of tribal in Jharkhand.
The learned Court ultimately recorded the finding that it was
established that Khandu Bala Singh had only the life interest in the
property and it was settled principle of law that limited interest is
incapable of being transferred by life interest and therefore, held that
the sale deed executed by the vendor Khandu Bala Singh in the favour
of defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was not a valid document and had no
binding nature upon the plaintiffs, and the issue was ultimately
decided in the favour of the plaintiffs.
15. The learned Court ultimately declared the registered sale deed dated
18.03.2009, as illegal, null and void, inoperative and not binding upon
the plaintiffs. However, the Court recorded that the plaintiffs had not
adduced any additional reason for other reliefs.
16. While considering the issue Nos. (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv), the learned
trial court simply recorded that these were formal issues and no
sufficient and cogent evidence was adduced by the defendants to
establish these facts and these issues were adjudicated in negative and
against plaintiffs.
17. The learned 1st Appellate Court framed three points for determination
which are as follows:-
I. Whether plaintiff / respondents to the case is entitled for the
relief as sought for in the suit for a decree for declaration
that the sale deed executed by the Vendor Khandu Bala
Singh in favour of defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 is not a valid
documents and is not binding in nature upon the plaintiff ?
II. Whether the suit is barred by the law of the limitation?
III. Is there any need to interfere with the judgment and decree
of Ld. Trial Court?
2026:JHHC:419
18. While considering the point of determination no. I, the learned 1st
appellate court recorded that the defendants in appeal raised a plea
that Abhi Singh died leaving behind his widow Khandu Bala Singh
and Khandu Bala Singh, being the legal heir and successor of late
Abhi Singh had inherited the share of land belonging to late Abhi
Singh after partition of the same, and she sold her share to the
contesting defendants after obtaining the necessary permission under
Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and the said sale deed
was perfect and genuine, and the plaintiffs have no locus standi to
challenge the same. On the other hand, it was the case of the
plaintiffs that Khandu Bala Singh was not entitled to sell the suit land
by the sale deed dated 18.03.2009, which was null and void and
inoperative, and not binding upon the plaintiffs. The learned 1st
appellate court considered that the question to be determined was that
whether the vendor had inherited the scheduled land as mentioned
in the sale deed or not?
19. The learned 1st appellate court observed that 'he who relies upon
custom varying general law, must plead and prove the custom, and
the custom must be established by clear and unambiguous evidence'.
This was observed by referring to a judgment of the Jharkhand High
Court in the case of reported in S.A. No. 127 of 2014 [Prabha Minz
vs Martha Ekka and others] passed on 22nd April, 2022. The learned
1st appellate court also recorded that the learned trial court has given a
specific finding that there is admission on the part of the defendants
also that the plaintiffs and the defendants belongs to scheduled tribe
and they are guided by their own customary law in the matter of
succession and inheritance, and not guided by Hindu law.
20. The learned 1st appellate court arrived at a conclusion that the parties
are governed by customary law in the matter of succession, and
Khandu Bala Singh being widow of late Abhi Singh did not have any
absolute right to transfer the ancestral landed properties in favour of
defendants, hence the sale deed executed by Khandu Bala Singh in
favour of defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 is not a valid document, and also
held that the learned trial court has not correctly held that it was not
2026:JHHC:419
binding on all including plaintiff no.1, who herself is the female legal
heir having limited right and she was not entitled for any such
declaration.
21.The learned 1st appellate court thereafter, referred to Section 34 of the
Specific Relief Act in para 21 and referred to the judgment passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it was observed that mere
declaratory decree remains non-maintainable in most cases and also
noted that the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs could also be
amended even at a later stage to seek consequential relief. The learned
1st appellate court recorded its finding in para no. 23, 24 and 25 also
and ultimately held that the suit was barred by Section 34 of Specific
Relief Act, and ultimately allowed the appeal. Paragraph 21 to 25 of
the judgement passed by the learned 1st appellate court are quoted as
under: -
"21. In this regard in the appeal after going through the
entire fact and circumstance of the case and on finding that
Since the suit is of the declaratory in nature. Here it would
be relevant to state the provision of the Chapter VI of the
Specific Relief Act 1963 provides for Declaratory Decrees
under Section 34 of the Act and is the present law which
governs declaratory reliefs in India. It reads: 34.
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 2 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. 'Ganga Devi' and 'Vinay Krishna v.
Keshav Chandra' wherein it was held that the suit seeking
a declaration of title of ownership where possession is not
sought, is hit by the proviso of Section 34 of the SRA, and
is thus, is not maintainable. Whether the suit for
declaration was maintainable, SC referred to cases titled
'Ram Saran v. Ganga Devi' (1973) 2SCC 60 and 'Vinay
Krishna v. Keshav Chandra' 1993 Supp (3) SCC 129
wherein it was held that the suit seeking a declaration of
title of ownership where possession is not sought, is hit by
the proviso of Section 34 of the SRA, and is thus, not
2026:JHHC:419
maintainable. SC also referred to a case titled
'Venkataraja and Ors. v. Vidyane Doureradjaperumal
(Dead) through Lrs (2012) 8 SCC 148 (2-Judge Bench)
wherein the objective behind Section 34 of the SRA was
elucidated by the SC. SC observed that the proviso is to
prevent multiplicity of proceedings It was further
expounded that mere declaratory decree remains non-
maintainable in most cases. SC further noted that the suit
for declaration filed by the Petitioner was never amended,
even at a later stage to seek the consequential relief and
therefore, it was held to be not maintainable.
22. The honorable Jharkhand high court in its Judgment
Rajasthan Bhawan Trust vs Most. Pradlya Devi And Ors.
on 13 September, 2002 Equivalent citations:
[2003(1)JCR486(JHR)], AIR 2003 (NOC) 352 (JHA), 2003
AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 637, 2003 A I H C 2272, (2003) 1
JCR 486 (JHA), (2002) 3 JLJR 687, (2003) 2 CURCC 98
para 11. Form bare perusal of the provision of sec 34 of
the Specific
Relief Act, and its proviso it is manifest that any person
entitled to a legal character or any right in a 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 a declaration that he is so entitled.
The proviso to this section says 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 emphasis is on the words "further relief which
means a relief which is inherent in the original declaration
claimed, a relief without which a declaratory relief claimed
would be ineffective, infructuous and unworkable. Para 12.
In the instant case, as noticed above, the plaintiffs sold the
suit property to the defendant No. 1 purchaser by a
registered deed of sale dated 12.12.1961 and on the same
day a separate agreement was executed by and between the
plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 whereby it was agreed that
in case defendant No. 1 decides to sell the property, he will
be bound under the agreement to offer the property to the
plaintiffs first for purchase and only on refusal of the
plaintiffs the defendant No. 1 would be at liberty to sell the
same to any person. The plaintiffs' case is that in breach of
the terms of agreement defendant No. 1 all of a sudden sold
the property to defendant No. 2 by registered deed of sale
dated 19.4.1971 without offering the property to the
plaintiffs for purchase. The plaintiffs, therefore, claim that
in terms of the agreement they are entitled to purchase the
property from defendant No. 1 who illegally sold it to
2026:JHHC:419
defendant No. 2. The relief, therefore, available to the
plaintiff was to seek a decree directing the defendant No. 1
along with defendant No. 2 to transfer the suit property in
their favour in terms of the agreement. A mere declaration
to the effect that the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1
in favour of defendant No. 2 is null and void is of no effect
unless a decree for specific performance is sought for in
the said suit. Such a declaratory relief without seeking the
main relief, in my opinion, is ineffective, infructuous and is
hit by the provisions of sec 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
The trial Court rightly held that the second relief for
specific performance cannot be granted in the suit as the
suit was not framed as one under the Specific Relief Act.
The honorable court held that it appears that this aspect of
the matter with regard to maintainability of the suit has
neither been discussed nor any finding has been recorded
in the judgment. Consistent case of the defendants was that
the suit was
barred under the proviso to section 34 of the Specific Relief
Act. Admittedly the plaintiffs only sought a declaration to
the effect that the sale deed dated 19.4.1971 executed by
defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 is illegal, void
and without jurisdiction. No further relief for recovery of
possession or for a decree directing the defendants to
transfer the property in their favour was sought for which
was admittedly available to the plaintiffs at the time to
institution of the suit. In my considered opinion, therefore,
the suit instituted by the plaintiff respondents is barred by
the provision of section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.''
23. Relying upon the above authorities and fact and the
circumstance of the case, the court finds that the recital of
the sale deed in question is also relevant as the same is
executed after taking due permission from the D.C and it
also contains that the executant had acquired to suit land
by the inheritance and having possession over the same
and the possession was given to the defendant's 1,2 and 3
and the suit is brought only for the declaration that the sale
Deed is For decree
declaring that the sale deed executed by Khadu Bala Singh
in favour of the defendants 1,2 and 3 in respect of the
schedule land which has been registered at Dist. Sub-
Registry Office at Jamshedpur bearing deed no.1834 dated
18.03.2009 is illegal, null and void, inoperative and not
binding on plaintiff without the consequential relief.
24. Here it is relevant to state as per the pleading of the
plaintiffs and defendants, it is apparent that the possession
of the suit land was voluntarily handed over to the
2026:JHHC:419
defendants and prior to that the vendor Khandu Bala Singh
was in possession of the suit land, the question of
automatic devolution of the possession upon the death of
Khandu Bala Singh will not return on the plaintiffs as per
the evidence of the defendants and the statement in the
written statement, it is clear that the possession of the suit
land was delivered to the defendants and since then the
defendants are in possession of the suit land, in the
circumstance when the possession is with the defendant the
relief should had been made by the plaintiff which is not
been in the relief portion of the plaintiff, at the same time
court finds that the evidence on record does not reveals
that the possession of the portion of the share of Abhi
Singh after his death remain with Khandu Bala Singh,
though in the capacity of his widow with the limited right
the possession remained with Khandu Bala Singh and in
her life time it was handed over to the defendant no.1,
2 and 3 and those defendants were also allowed by the
plaintiffs when they came upon the death of Khandu Bala
Singh in her Shradh Ceremony to stay at the village
Rupsan and allowed for cultivation of the land also
corroborates that the possession was given to the
defendants. In this case the court finds that the relief
sought for by the plaintiff is for declaration that the sale
deed in question is illegal, null and void and inoperative
and not binding upon the plaintiffs is simple declaratory in
nature without claiming his right, title and interest on the
said area or any other relief with respect to the possession.
However, such declaration cannot be made in absence of
the fact that the possession will not automatically rebut to
the remaining legal heirs who are entitled for with respect
to the right, title and interest, no such relief has been
sought in this case. Along with the possession that has been
delivered with the defendants. The suit is hit by section 34
of Proviso of Specific Relief Act and no relief with regard
to declaration only can be granted. Besides that in the light
of the forgoing discussions and observations the court finds
that the present suit is not maintainable in its present form
and the suit is also hit by section 34 of Proviso of the
Specific Relief Act and the court has suo motu granted with
regard to declaration of the sale deed which is been sought
for by the plaintiff for decree for cancellation of the same,
it is not been sought for in this suit as the suit is brought
only for declaration for the declaration that the sale Deed
is for decree declaring that the sale deed executed by
Khadu Bala Singh in favour of the defendants 1,2 and 3 in
respect of the schedule land which has been registered at
2026:JHHC:419
Dist. Sub-Registry Office at Jamshedpur bearing deed no.
1834 dated 18.03.2009 is illegal, null and void, inoperative
and not binding on plaintiff , when the defendant's are in
possession over the suit land no relief for recovery of the
possession or cancellation of the same is made no relief
with regard to cancellation of the same can be granted
without seeking for. Along with that plaintiff required to
pay the advalorem court fee.
25. Beside that the court finds even there is as specific
findings about the applicability of the customary law of
inheritance prevailing the Bhumij tribal community hence
the female legal heirs of the Bhumij community had only
limited right interest in the suit property as settled
principle of law that the limited interest is not incapable of
being transferred by light interest holder to other and
therefore Sale Deed executed by Khandu Bala Singh in
favour of the defendant No.1, 2 and since the possession of
the suit land is with the defendant's and the plaintiff had
not asked for any relief for the recovery of the possession
along with the declaration of the sale Deed as null and
void and cancellation of the same ,no such simple
declaration can be made. Hence the present court arrive at
the conclusion that the plaintiff to the original suit is not
entitled for relief as sought for a decree for the declaration
that the sale deed executed by the Vendor Khandu Bala
Singh in favour of defendant no. 1, 2 and 3 is Not a valid
documents and is not binding in nature upon the plaintiff
as the suit is found to be barred by the provision of section
34 of the Specific Relief Act in the result the point for the
determination No I is decided in negative and against the
respondents."
22. In the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148 it has been held
as under: -
"Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
55. The section provides that courts have discretion as to
declaration of status or right, however, it carves out an
exception that a court shall not make any such declaration of
status or right where the complainant, being able to seek
further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.
56. In Ram Saran v. Ganga Devi this Court had categorically
held that the suit seeking for declaration of title of ownership
but where possession is not sought, is hit by the proviso of
Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter called
"the Specific Relief Act") and, thus, not maintainable. In
Vinay Krishna v. Keshav Chandra this Court dealt with a
similar issue where the plaintiff was not in exclusive
2026:JHHC:419
possession of property and had filed a suit seeking
declaration of title of ownership. Similar view has been
reiterated observing that the suit was not maintainable, if
barred by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
(See also Gian Kaur v. Raghubir Singh)
57. In view of the above, the law becomes crystal clear that it
is not permissible to claim the relief of declaration without
seeking consequential relief.
58. In the instant case, the suit for declaration of title of
ownership had been filed, though Respondent 1-plaintiff was
admittedly not in possession of the suit property. Thus, the
suit was barred by the provisions of Section 34 of the
Specific Relief Act and, therefore, ought to have been
dismissed solely on this ground. The High Court though
framed a substantial question on this point but for unknown
reasons did not consider it proper to decide the same.
...............................................
...................................................
85.12. The suit was barred by the proviso to Section 34 of the
Specific Relief Act, for the reason that Respondent 1-plaintiff,
admittedly, had not been in possession and he did not ask for
restoration of possession or any other consequential relief."
23.This Court is of the considered view that the present case does not call
for framing any substantial question of law as the suit has been rightly
held by the learned 1st appellate court to be barred under section 34 of
the Specific Relief Act, 1963 by citing sound reasons as quoted above.
As recorded by the learned court, based on the materials on record,
that admittedly the contesting defendants were in possession of the
suit property but no relief was claimed by the plaintiffs to seek
recovery of possession and the suit was declaratory in nature and
hence barred under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
24.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
considered view that no question of law, much less the substantial
questions of law is involved in this case.
25. This 2nd appeal is accordingly dismissed.
26. Pending Interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.
27. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned courts
through "Fax/e-mail".
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Rakesh/-
06th January, 2026
Uploaded on:- 08th January, 2026
