Suit without any cause of action ‘not maintainable’

Advertisement

Chandigarh, January 5

District Judge Arunvir Vashista has upheld an order passed by the trial court, which dismissed a civil suit filed by an 81-year-old person to declare him, his two sons and daughter as legal heirs of his wife who died intestate.

The appellant had filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court vide which his civil suit for declaration was dismissed.

The appellant in the appeal said his wife had purchased a house in Sector 37, Chandigarh, in 2004. As such, she was the absolute owner of the house. She died in 2019.

The above property of his wife who died intestate was to be devolved according to rules set out in Section 16 of the Hindu Succession Act firstly upon sons, daughters and the husband. Hence, they all were entitled to succeed to her property being her legal heirs. There was no other legal heir except the plaintiffs. They sought declaration to the effect that they be declared as legal heirs of the woman.

After hearing the arguments, the trial court dismissed the suit. It observed the plaintiffs had sought declaration without seeking relief of mandatory injunction. A mere suit for declaration was not maintainable and was barred by Section 34 of Specific Relief Act.

The appellant preferred an appeal with prayer for acceptance of their suit. His counsel contended that the trial court had virtually failed to apply its judicial mind while passing the judgment and decree under appeal that had been rather passed in a hasty manner. He argued that in the case, the plaintiffs had only prayed to declare them as legal heirs of the deceased. No other relief was required to be sought, hence the suit was not barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The relief of mandatory injunction was not required in the case as there was no apprehension of breach of any obligation. The suit for declaration was well maintainable.

After hearing of the arguments, the District Judge upheld the decision of the trial court. He said this court failed to find anything lacking, and unjustified in the order. The court said the suit filed by the plaintiffs also failed to make out the cause of action. Rather there is no cause of action disclosed or asserted in the plaint. There is no plea as to who has been denying or is interested to deny their legal character regarding which they seek declaration.

Such a suit without any cause of action is not maintainable that, too, against general public. Rather in the entire plaint, even it has not been asserted if general public was denying their status as legal heirs what to talk of denial by any specific person. In view of this, the court finds that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief as claimed for.