RAM CHANDRA GANGA BUX FIRM Vs. SUNDERLALL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration without claiming consequential relief.

(2.) In the first instance he claimed a declaration and possession, but the trial Court having demanded a higher court fee than he had paid, he amended his plaint by striking out that portion by which he claimed possession. The trial Court then, having gone into the merits of the case, gave a decree to the plaintiff. In appeal that decree was confirmed by the District Judge coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain his suit without claiming possesssion.

(3.) In second appeal before this Court the only question that arises is the one which I have stated and no other point has been argued. The defendant relies upon the decision of the Privy Council in Kathama Natchiar V/s. Dorasinga Tevar (1875) 2 I.A. 169 where their Lordships of the Judicial Committee pointed out that the power of the Courts in India to make declaratory decree was admitted to rest upon Section 15 of the then Civil P.C. (Act 8 of 1859), and proceeded to state that the application of that Section ... must be governed by the same principles as those upon which the Court of Chancery proceeds under 15 and 16, Vict., Clause 86, Section 50; that there is no absolute right to a declaratory decree and that a declaratory decree cannot be made unless there be a right to consequential relief capable of being had in the same Court.