If Appropriate Consequential Relief Is Not Sought Along With Declaration, Plaintiff Must Be Granted An Opportunity To Amend Plaint: Karnataka High Court

The Court cautioned that dismissing declaration suits solely because the plaintiff failed to seek possession or claimed defective consequential relief could lead to unjust outcomes. It observed that in such situations, even after proving ownership, the plaintiff would lose the case, while the defendant, despite lacking title would continue to enjoy possession. The Court noted that such a consequence would amount to “unjust enrichment” and must be avoided.

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde observed, “It is true that the language in Section 34 of the Act, 1963 is plain, simple and unambiguous. As a general rule the plain grammatical meaning must be adhered to while construing the provision. However, such application results in weird situations described above where despite being the owner the plaintiff may lose case and despite being not the owner, or being a trespasser, the defendant may continue to be in possession, for want of appropriate consequential prayer in the plaint. In a way that amounts to unjust enrichment”.

The Court further clarified that where appropriate consequential relief has not been sought, courts must give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the plaint and consider such amendment before deciding the suit on merits, rather than rejecting the claim outright under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

“In case, the relief is not moulded or amendment is not permitted in deserving cases, the anomaly continues. Even if the plaintiff proves the title or establishes that he is entitled to the declaration sought, and in case the suit is to be dismissed resorting to proviso to Section 34 of the Act, 1963, because of omission to claim consequential relief, or because of defective consequential relief, the defendant will continue to enjoy the property or will have a benefit of decree of dismissal. Such situation has to be avoided”, the Bench further observed.

Senior Advocate G Papireddy appeared for the appellants and Advocate G A Srikante Gowda appeared for the respondents.

The dispute in the matter, concerned a suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction over immovable property in Kolar district, which was initially dismissed by the Trial Court.

However, the First Appellate Court reversed the decision and decreed the suit in their favour, declaring them owners. The defendants, who claimed possession based on unregistered sale deeds and a subsequent gift deed, challenged this decree before the High Court in second appeal.

Therefore, now the Court noted that, “The provision aims at avoiding multiplicity of litigation and prompts the parties to make the suit comprehensive. That is the primary purpose of the provision. The provision does not intend to penalise or punish the party for not complying the requirement of the proviso to Section 34 of the Act, 1963 by denying the declaration or any other relief which the plaintiff is otherwise entitled”.

The Court held that a combined reading of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the Supreme Court's decisions in Mst. Rukmabhai v. Lala Laximinarayan and Others 1960 SC 335 and Akkamma and others v. Vemavathi and others (2021) SCC OnLine SC 1146 makes it clear that courts should not mechanically dismiss suits for want of consequential relief. Instead, the following principles must guide adjudication:

1. Where appropriate consequential relief is not sought along with declaration, the court must grant the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the plaint and decide the amendment plea before proceeding on merits.

2. Such amendment may be permitted at any stage, including in second appeal before the High Court, subject to the limitations under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

3. If the plaintiff fails to amend the plaint despite being granted an opportunity, the suit risks dismissal.

4. If the defendant does not raise the bar under the proviso to Section 34 in the written statement, the plea cannot ordinarily be raised for the first time in appeal.

5. Even where consequential relief is not claimed, the court may grant declaration if the bar under the proviso was not pleaded in the suit.

6. In deserving cases, where the evidence overwhelmingly supports the plaintiff and the omission is merely technical, the court may mould the relief and grant appropriate consequential relief, subject to payment of additional court fee, if required.

Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the High Court found that the plaintiffs had successfully established ownership of the suit property, while the defendants were in possession without valid title, relying on unregistered sale deeds that did not confer ownership rights.

“In view of the declaration of law, which permits that the relief of declaration of title (or any other declaration sought) can be granted by declining the defective or inappropriate consequential relief, then probably armed with said declaration, the plaintiff may sue for possession of the property if he is declared as the owner. And the plaintiff may urge that the such second suit is maintainable and the cause of action is different and Order II Rule 2 of the Code does not apply. Such situation also has to be avoided”, the judgment read.

While confirming the declaration of title in favour of the plaintiffs, the Court directed that recovery of possession would be subject to adjudication in pending partition proceedings, where issues relating to structures raised on the property would also be determined.

The Court also imposed ₹ 50,000 cost on the plaintiffs for suppressing material facts and pursuing multiple proceedings, stressing the obligation of litigants to approach courts with full disclosure.

Cause Title: Taj Parveen & Anr. v. Ezazulla Shariff & Ors. RSA No. 1657 of 2013

Appellants: G Papireddy, Sr. Advocate, V Vinod Reddy, Advocate.

Respondents: G A Srikante Gowda, Gururaj Joshi and Sri Nachiket Joshi, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment