Declaration of Legal Character – Suit Seeking Negative Declaration – Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Maintainability of Declaratory Relief Dehors Section 34 – Proviso to Section 34 – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 

The Bombay High Court affirmed the maintainability of the suit for negative declaration, holding that: (a) Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, does not exhaust the power of civil courts to grant declaratory relief. (b) A negative declaration regarding marital status falls within the ambit of legal character and is maintainable. (c) The declaration of marital status is a substantive relief and does not necessarily require consequential relief.

The court held that the form of declaration is immaterial; what matters is the legal character or status sought to be established. Civil courts possess jurisdiction to grant declarations beyond the scope of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, where appropriate. ( Paras: 10, 15, 17, 18, 21, 24)

The Civil Judge’s order rejecting the application for rejection of the plaint was upheld. The application stood rejected with no costs awarded.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order VII Rule 11 – Rejection of Plaint

2. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) – Section 34 – Discretion of Court as to Declaration of Status or Right

3. Family Courts Act, 1984 – Section 7 – Jurisdiction of Family Courts

Subjects:

Declaratory Relief – Legal Character – Negative Declaration – Marital Status – Rejection of Plaint – Consequential Relief – Maintainability – Civil Jurisdiction – Judicial Precedents – Proviso Interpretation

Facts:

1. Nature of Litigation: Civil Revision Application challenging the rejection of an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the rejection of a suit seeking a negative declaration of marital status.

2. Relief Sought: The applicant (defendant) sought the rejection of the plaintiff’s suit, asserting that the suit was barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and no negative declaration could be sought without consequential relief.

3. Reason for Filing: The plaintiff instituted the suit for a declaration that no marriage was solemnized between the parties on 21st September, 2018, or on any other day.

4. Prior Decisions: The Civil Judge held that the suit seeking a negative declaration was maintainable and dismissed the application for rejection of the plaint.

Issues:

1. Whether a suit for a negative declaration of marital status is maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

2. Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to grant a declaratory relief independently of Section 34 of the Act of 1963?

3. Whether the rejection of the plaint was justified under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

Submissions/Arguments:

(a) Applicant’s Counsel: Argued that a negative declaration cannot be sought under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and that the suit was barred as no consequential relief was sought. (b) Respondent’s Counsel: Contended that Section 34 of the Act of 1963 is not exhaustive, and a civil court can grant declaratory relief independently under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.