https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276775 A widow was held not to have acquired absolute title to the suit property, as the concurrent factual findings treated her only as a life estate holder and the later contrary view was unsupported by evidence. The Court also applied the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, holding that a bare suit for declaration of title was not maintainable where the defendants and their tenants were in possession and the plaintiff could seek consequential relief of possession. The omission of that further relief barred declaratory relief, and the dismissal of the suit was affirmed. en-us Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Nov 2018 10:40:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276775 A widow was held not to have acquired absolute title to the suit property, as the concurrent factual findings treated her only as a life estate holder and the later contrary view was unsupported by evidence. The Court also applied the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, holding that a bare suit for declaration of title was not maintainable where the defendants and their tenants were in possession and the plaintiff could seek consequential relief of possession. The omission of that further relief barred declaratory relief, and the dismissal of the suit was affirmed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276775