-The defendant must have denied, or be threatening or intending to deny, the rights or legal entitlement of the plaintiff.

-The declaration which the plaintiff seeks must be of the nature of rights or legal character to which the plaintiff claims he is entitled.

-The plaintiff must not seek any relief beyond the mere declaration of his rights which have been denied by the defendant.

Section 34: Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right

Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 empowers the courts to pass declaratory decrees. This section empowers the court to declare the legal rights of the parties when such rights are in dispute and require clarification. It does not compel the performance of any specific act nor does it impose restrictions on a party, but rather confirms the legal status or entitlements of the parties.

A person can file a suit for declaration when his legal right or status is threatened or denied. The court may make a declaration as to right and status but is not competent to pass an order for consequential relief in the nature of damages or specific performance of contract unless prayed for, jointly with other reliefs.

Object and Requirements:

For getting a declaratory relief under the said section, the plaintiff has to establish a number of vital requirements:

-The plaintiff shall establish that the defendant has denied or is interested in denying the plaintiff's legal character or title. The denial or possible denial should be brought to the notice of the plaintiff, giving him a valid cause of action.

-A plaintiff must prove that there exists an immediate, continuous threat to his legal interest apart from which judicial intervention becomes relevant.

-The discretion while granting a declaratory decree has to be exercised with due care and caution by the court. This remedy should only be granted in proper cases, lest the door for litigation becomes prolific and doubts persist in the mind of the plaintiff regarding his rights.

Legal Character under Declaratory Decree:

The term legal character refers to the legal status or attributes which a person possesses defining his standing. It refers to the capacity or the qualification attached to his title or designation under the law. It has been observed in the case of Hiralal v. Gulab (1953) that declaratory decree can cover not only the question of sex, minority, rank, caste, tribe, and profession but may include any element which goes to establish the legal character of a person.

Person Entitled to a Right to Property:

The plaintiff, in order to get declaratory relief under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, has to establish his entitlement to a right regarding the property in dispute.

Distinction Between Rights:

• There is a distinction between 'Right to Property' and 'Right in Property' according to the Bombay High Court.

• Declaratory relief does not require that the plaintiff establish a right within the property, but it has to be shown that they are entitled to a right in regard to the property from which they have been denied.

Declaration Alignment:

• Declaration sought must exactly accord with what plaintiff is entitled to.

• The relief sought should be in line with the declaration to which the plaintiff is entitled by right concerning his property interest.

Purpose of Alignment:

• Ensuring that the declaration is reflective and enforces the plaintiff's legal entitlement effectively should suffice in the court granting the relief.

Suit for Declaration Is Not Maintainable:

• No suit can be maintained for a declaration that the plaintiff has not infringed the defendant's trademark.

• Declaration that a will is invalid cannot be made during the life of the testator.

• No suit can be filed to seek a declaration regarding rights of succession which do not exist.

Limitation Period

The limitation periods applicable to suits under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, are given under Articles 56, 57, and 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963:

-Article 56 provides period of three years from the date of recognition of document declaring instrument forged, executed, or registered.

-Article 57 provides that a three-year period of limitation applies to obtaining a declaration that such an alleged adoption is invalid or never took place.

-Article 58 contemplates the limitation period of three years in obtaining declaratory relief of whatever other nature not specifically provided for in Articles 56 and 57.

Case law:

Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (2003):

This view explained that declaratory decrees could be granted to define the legal rights of parties in given circumstances, where the court's jurisdictional prerequisites are adequately satisfied.

Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000):

The Supreme Court maintained that declaratory relief was available to confirm rights, especially when questions of public interest litigation arose.

Section 35: Limitation of Declaratory Decrees

According to the provision under Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act, a declaratory decree does not alter or affect the status or right of parties in any case unless it is specifically provided by the law. No declaration affects a change of the legal situation unless other forms of relief are combined together.

A declaratory decree, without providing a remedy for enforcing the declared rights, does not lead to any practical enforcement. Therefore, in most cases, consequential reliefs like injunctions or specific performance have to be pursued.

A declaration made upon a decree under this Section shall, under this Section, be binding upon both parties to the suit and upon any persons claiming through one or other of those parties. If either party to the suit is a trustee, the declaration shall also be binding upon the beneficiaries for whom he is trustee, there having been persons then in existence to endow such beneficiaries at the date of such declaration.

Case Law:

State of M.P. v. Khan Bahadur Bhiwandiwala and Co (1971)

It was observed that to get a declaratory relief, the plaintiff has got to fulfill the following requirements, namely:

-The plaintiff, at the time of filing the suit, must show entitlement to a particular legal character or a right to property.

-There has to be a denial or an interest to deny on the part of the defendant to plaintiff's legal character or title to property.

-Declaration to be made must involve plaintiff's right to a legal character or right to a property.

-The plaintiff must not be seeking more than a mere declaration of their title. Declaratory relief being equitable relief, the court has always retained discretion based on the specifics to grant or refuse the same.

N.K. Khosla v. Union of India (1968):

The Supreme Court emphasized that a declaratory decree, sans more, does not affect the legal rights of the parties unless followed by a grant of consequential relief.

K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1980):

The principle that a declaratory decree establishes the rights without providing its enforcement, unless specific relief is also granted, was reiterated in this case too.

Tarak Chandra Das v. Anukul Chandra Mukherjee

In this case it was held that the court has absolute discretion to refuse relief, if the claim be too remote or the declaration, if given, would be inoperative. Besides, it was seen in this case that the words "Right to Property" as used in the said article convey the meaning that the plaintiff should have a substantive legal right in the property over which the issue has cropped up. Mere interest in the property without substantive legal right will not be sufficient to entitle special relief.

Preventive Relief

Introduction:

Preventive relief seeks to restrain a party from committing or continuing wrongs. It is generally awarded with the assistance of injunctions.

The grant of preventive relief is done to prevent harm in the future before it has actually occurred. It is contrasted with corrective relief, which would be given after the fact when the harm has actually accrued.

Granting of Preventive Relief:

Preventive relief is provided through the granting of injunctions. The relevant law on injunctions in this jurisdiction is guided by equity principles, which are themselves coloured by principles from the Roman law tradition.

The Specific Relief Act, 1963 allows for preventive relief mainly through injunctions. Preventive relief by way of several types of injunctions aims at prevention of injury before it is actually caused and can be temporary, perpetual, or mandatory in nature, depending upon the facts of a particular case. These provisions have been interpreted and applied through landmark judicial decisions that have shaped relief in legal disputes. The dominant purpose of granting such relief is to maintain social order and stability.

Legal maxims:

“He who seeks equity must do equity”

This means that in order for the parties to obtain equitable relief, both parties must comply with the respective obligations and perform mutual promises.

“One who seeks equity must come with clean hands”

This is the maxim indicating that when a plaintiff seeks special relief, he must not have committed any wrong or misbehavior concerning the issue.

“Ubi jus ibi remedium”

The maxim means Wherever there is a right, there is a remedy. This is a well-known principle that whenever one has a right, then there must be an available legal remedy to enforce that right.

Landmark Cases:

K.K.Verma v. Union of India, 1980:

This case has considered the principles underlying grant of injunction as preventive relief, thus laying down the tests to be applied for grant of temporary and permanent injunctions.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service (1991):

Elaborate directions as to when preventive relief by way of injunctions would be granted were given by the Supreme Court. A clear legal right and irreparable injury were insisted to be proved.

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950):

Although fundamental rights were the issue in this case, it had also explained the concept of an injunction as preventive relief.