Section 34 declaratory relief is unavailable where the claimant’s legal status is undisputed.

The plaintiff sued for a declaration that he and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were the legal representatives of Peeraji S/o Rajappa Tahasildar @ Jyoteppanavar.

Defendant No. 2 admitted the family relationship but relied on earlier partition proceedings in which the plaintiff had been held not entitled to a share in the properties

The trial court dismissed the suit, finding it time-barred and that the plaintiff had not approached the court with clean hands; the first appellate court affirmed, also observing that the issues had been decided in earlier proceedings

The plaintiff’s legal representatives continued the second appeal after his death

Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act provides for declaratory relief to a person entitled to a legal character or right to property where another person denies, or is interested in denying, that character or right

The Court also applied the principle that unchallenged judgments and orders in earlier proceedings attain finality.

In a regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, interference requires a substantial question of law; the Court found none arose on the facts.

The Court noted that the parties did not dispute the plaintiff’s relationship with Peeraji or his status as a legal representative.

Because there was no denial or threatened denial of that status, the declaratory suit did not fall within Section 34.

The plaintiff had also been a party to earlier partition proceedings, whose decisions that he was not entitled to a share had attained finality.

His suit sought only a declaration of legal status, without any further relief, which the Court considered relevant to the bona fides of the claim.

On that record, the Court found no error by the courts below and no substantial question of law.

Pending applications were disposed of as not surviving for consideration.