UNION OF INDIA Vs. BASUDEO NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendant arises out of a suit for the following. reliefs.

(2.) The Union of India contested the suit on several grounds including the ground that the suit was hit by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. This last mentioned ground has alone been pressed before us.

(3.) The trial court found that the entry in respect of plaintiff's age in the service sheet was wrong and that the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration that his retirement from the 10th of March 1956, was illegal, void and without jurisdiction. The finding that the entry was wrong has not been challenged before us. It has, however, been strenuously urged that on the reliefs prayed for, this suit was hit by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, as on the facts and circumstances though the plaintiff was entitled to consequential relief, he had failed to make any such prayer and a suit for mere declaration should have been dismissed. The contention was sought to be supported on the view which had commended itself to the trial court that relief No. I as prayed really consisted of two Para, both the parts being for mere declaration. In the first part the plaintiff sought a declaration that his retirement from 10-3-1956, was illegal, void and without jurisdiction and in the second part the plaintiff claimed declaration that he was entitled to serve in his post from which he was retired and enjoy privileges, advantages and emoluments thereof. It may be mentioned that trial court has rejected the second part of the relief.