Suit Simpliciter for Declaration of Title Not Maintainable Where Remedy of Specific Performance Is Abandoned

The Plaintiff (Respondent-Society) filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership over a plot of land and building based on an agreement dated January 20, 1977, and individual flat purchase agreements executed with members under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA).

The Defendant (Appellant-Landowner) denied the Society’s title, asserting that members failed to complete payments and that no conveyance had been executed.

The Trial Court decreed the suit, declaring the Society the owner and directing the Defendant to execute a conveyance.

During appellate proceedings, the Society applied to amend its plaint to include a prayer for conveyance but subsequently withdrew that application.

Despite the absence of a prayer for specific performance/conveyance, the First Appellate Court confirmed the Trial Court’s decree.

1. Whether the lower courts erred in granting a decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale when the suit was filed only for the relief of declaration of ownership?

2. Whether a suit simpliciter for declaration, without seeking further relief (conveyance), is maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act?

Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which grants the court discretion to declare a party's legal character or right to property, provided that no such declaration shall be made where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief (such as specific performance or conveyance), omits to do so.

Statutory obligations of a "promoter" to convey title under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act (MOFA), 1963.

The High Court observed that the Society’s suit was limited to a declaration of ownership.

It noted that an agreement to sell does not, by itself, create a title in the land; therefore, a declaration of ownership cannot be granted without a decree for specific performance.

The Court highlighted a critical procedural flaw: the Society had specifically applied to amend the plaint to seek conveyance but voluntarily withdrew that application in a revision proceeding.

By abandoning the prayer for conveyance, the Society fell foul of the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, which bars a mere declaration when the plaintiff fails to seek "further relief" (conveyance) available to them.

The court held that both lower courts acted beyond their jurisdiction by granting specific performance/conveyance in the absence of a specific prayer and proper pleadings.

The court quashed and set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, and dismissed Regular Civil Suit No. 9 of 1981.