A co-sharer’s suit challenging an alienation is maintainable without seeking partition.

The plaintiffs, the wife and children of defendant No. 1, sued for declaration of title to 10 guntas of land, cancellation of a sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2, and permanent injunction.

They claimed the land was joint-family property.

The Trial Court held that the property was joint-family property and that the sale deed was valid only to the extent of defendant No. 1’s undivided one-fourth share; it dismissed the injunction claim.

The First Appellate Court reversed the decree and dismissed the suit as not maintainable because the plaintiffs had not sought partition and separate possession.

The plaintiffs appealed under Section 100 CPC.

1. Whether the suit for declaration, cancellation of the sale deed and injunction was maintainable without a prayer for partition and separate possession.

2. Whether, after setting aside the First Appellate Court’s decision on maintainability, the High Court should restore the Trial Court’s decree or remit the matter for reconsideration on the merits.

Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act does not bar a suit for declaration where the plaintiff seeks appropriate consequential relief;

The Court relied on Akkamma v. V. Vemavathi, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 1146, as followed by the Karnataka High Court in Taj Parveen v. Ezazulla, RSA No. 1657 of 2023 (16 February 2026).

The Court also treated the adequacy of the reliefs sought, rather than the absence of a partition prayer alone, as relevant to maintainability.

The High Court held that the First Appellate Court incorrectly characterised the suit as one for declaration simpliciter: the plaintiffs had also sought cancellation of the sale deed and permanent injunction.

It therefore concluded that Section 34 did not render the suit unmaintainable.

However, because the First Appellate Court had not considered the parties’ competing claims on the merits—including whether the property was joint-family or self-acquired property—the High Court declined to restore the Trial Court’s decree and instead remitted the appeal for fresh consideration.

It allowed the second appeal, set aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment and decree, and remitted the matter for reconsideration on all issues except maintainability, which was concluded in the plaintiffs’ favour.

All other contentions were left open.