Declaratory relief must support consequential relief; a bare future title declaration was held not maintainable.

A declaratory decree under the Code of Civil Procedure could not be granted as a matter of unfettered discretion merely to quiet a doubtful title or resolve a possible future dispute. The provision was construed in line with the analogous English equity principle, so the declaration sought had to be capable of supporting consequential relief in the same court or another competent forum. A bare request for a future declaration of succession to a zemindary, without any existing right to consequential relief, fell outside the provision. Allegations of maintenance, waste, and hostile acts did not create the necessary present right. The declaratory suit was therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit for a merely declaratory decree was maintainable under the Code of Civil Procedure in the absence of a right to consequential relief.

Analysis: The governing clause was construed as adopting the same principle as the analogous English equity provision. A declaratory decree could not be granted as a matter of uncontrolled discretion merely to quiet a doubtful title or determine a future controversy. The declaration sought had to be capable of forming the foundation of consequential relief, either in the same court or in another competent forum. On that construction, a bare declaration of future succession to the zemindary, unsupported by an existing right to consequential relief, was outside the proper scope of the provision. The ancillary allegations of maintenance, waste, and hostile acts did not supply a present right to have the future title conclusively declared against the opposing party.

Conclusion: The declaratory suit was not maintainable, and the decree in favour of the respondent could not stand.

---