R NALLAMUTHU GOUNDER Vs. V NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were raised for decision:

(2.) MR.T.V. Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, took me through the pleadings with particular reference to the cause of action, Court fee and the prayers and submitted that the plaintiff having admitted the possession of the defendants and in particular of the 4th defendant, who is the appellant in the second appeal, cannot ask for injunction and in as much as he has asked for injunction, in view of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the suit ought to have been dismissed by the Courts below.

(3.) THE idea behind the proviso to Section 34 as pointed out in several decisions is that a defendant must not be subjected to a multiplicity of litigations as regards the same property. THErefore, if a plaintiff sues for declaration, he must seek for further relief in the same suit and if he fails to do so, the suit has to fail. It is also well established that an objection that the further relief should have been asked for should be raised at the earliest point of time, so that in such an event, it may be open to the plaintiff to ask for necessary amendment to comply with the provisions of Section 34 of the Act. THE plea based on the proviso must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. Decisions have held that belated objection about the maintainability of the suit for declaration without the consequential relief of possession, cannot be entertained. THE defendant cannot be allowed to raise the objection for the first time in the Appellate Court.