MADANLAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against a decision of the District Judge, Guna by which he upheld the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge of Bhilsa dismissing the plaintiff appellant's suit claiming reliefs by way of declaration and injunction. The plaintiff alleged that on 14 -8 -1948 the Congress Committee of Basoda entered into an agreement with the State of Madhya Bharat for the sale and distribution on behalf of the Government of foodgrains at Basoda; that according to the agreement the Congress Committee was made responsible for crediting into Government treasury proceeds of the sale of foodgrains after deducting the necessary expenses incurred in distribution and sale of the foodgrains; that on these terms the Congress Committee carried on the work of the sale and distribution of foodgrains from 14 -8 -1948 upto 7 -10 -1948 and that on this latter date the Committee also submitted to the Government an account of the transactions; that contrary to the terms of the aforesaid agreement the State of Madhya Bharat was now holding the plaintiff personally responsible for the sale and distribution of food -grains and was demanding from him a certain -amount as due on account of the undertaking.

(2.) HAVING heard Mr. R.K. Dikshit, learned counsel for the appellant, 1 have reached the conclusion that this appeal must be dismissed. The Courts below were no doubt not accurate in saying that the plaintiff's suit was premature but they were certainly right in holding that the suit was not maintainable. Under S. 42, Specific Relief Act in a suit for declaration the plaintiff must show that he has some legal character or some right to property and that his opponent is denying or interested in denying such legal character or title; and the declaration can only be that the plaintiff is entitled to a legal character or to a right of property. Now legal character is the same as legal status i.e., a position recognized by law. A suit for a declaration that under a certain contract the plaintiff is not liable is not a suit for a declaration that he is entitled to a legal character or to any right as to any property. It is obvious from the plaint that here there is no question of the plaintiffs any legal character or any right as to property.

(3.) BOSE J. further held that the relief of injunction claimed by Shantarani could not be granted to her as she could obtain equally efficacious relief in usual mode of proceedings which the Municipal Committee may take for enforcing their claim. The case of the Municipal Committee of Akola is on all fours with the present case.