Court caseAIR 1972 SC 2685

The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of certain property and sued for a declaration of her title and that a transaction relied on by the defendant did not affect it. The defendant was in possession of the property, and the plaintiff did not ask for possession or any other consequential relief, confining the suit to a declaration.

The Supreme Court held that the suit was not maintainable. Where the defendant is in possession, the plaintiff who claims title is able to seek the further relief of possession; if she omits to do so and asks for a bare declaration, the proviso bars the court from granting it. The object of the proviso is to prevent multiplicity of suits and to ensure that a declaration is not used as a device to avoid court fees or limitation applicable to the real relief. The plaintiff's omission was fatal to the suit as framed.