LAWS(ALL)-1995-5-19

RAZZAK MIAN Vs. SAIDUNISHA

Decided On May 24, 1995
RAZZAK MIAN Appellant
V/S
SAIDUNISHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13th Match 1995, passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Ballia, in Civil Appeal No. 167 of 1992 deciding the question of valuation.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the respondents first set, filed Suit No. 57 of 1979 against the petitioner and others for declaration that the decree passed in Suit No. 19 of 1970 between Razzak Main v. Ziaul Haq passed on 27-3-1973, was not binding upon the plaintiffs and further injunction restrain-in the defendant 1 (petitioner) from interfering in their possession and for mandamus commanding him not to make construction or change the nature of the property in dispute.

(3.) THE question involved is as to whether on the facts and circum stances of the present case the relief of the possession claimed by the plaintiff-respondents in alternative can be taken as a consequential relief claimed by them based on the relief of declaration sought by them. It depends upon the averments made in the plaint. THE Court has to find out the substantive relief claimed by the plaintiff, In every suit the right of the parties has to be determin ed and the court can grant relief in the suit only when it finds that the plain tiff has established his right to get the relief sought by him. THE plaintiff by merely claiming the relief of declaration and further asking another relief can be in all the circumstances, allege that he is claiming the other relief viz. injunction, possession etc. as consequential reliefs. THE Court has to examine pith and substance of the plaint and find out the real relief claimed by the plaintiff. Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fee Act or Section 4 (iv) (a) of the Amendment Act, provides for declaratory relief and another relief, either as one composite relief or as two distinct reliefs. Such other relief may be termed as "consequential relief".