JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Plaintiff is the appellant in a suit far declaration only. 2. One Bharat was owner of some landed properties. Ha died in the year 1958 leaving behind his widow Sakuntala. in 1963, one Matmwar filed a suit for partition against Sakuntala. third wife of Bharat claiming to be the adopted son of Bharat. Suit having been dismissed. Maheswar filed First Appeal No. 04 of 1971 in this Court. During pendency of the First Appeal, Sakuntala died on 23-4-1972. On death of Sakuntala, dispute relating to possession of the properties of Bharat arose between plaintiff and Ors. on one side and defendant No. 1 and Anr. on the other side. When the dispute was brought to notice of learned Executive Magistrate by defendant No. 1, a proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated apprehending breach of peace in which preliminary order was passed on 9-8-1972. At that stage, defendant No. 1 filed an application in First Appeal to be substituted in place of deceased Sakuntala on the basis of liar last will in his favour. Plaintiff also filed an application for substitution claiming to be the nearest reversioner of Bharat. Both plaintiff and defendant No. 1. were allowed to be substituted in place of Sakuntala for continuation of the First Appeal where the question for consideration was whether Maheswar was adopted son of Bharat and Sakuntala. First Appeal by Maheswar was dismissed finding that he is not the adopted son of Bharat and Sakuntala. As regards claim of plaintiff to be nearest reversioner of Bharat and of defendant No. 1 to be the owner of the properties of Bharat on the basis of last will of Sakuntala, it was left open to be adjudicated and decided in a separate suit. Before disposal of the First Appeal in 1976, 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding was completed in 1073 where defendant No. 1 was declared to be in possession of the property of Bharat restraining Maheswar, plaintiff and Ors. from interfering with possession of defendant No. 1 until evicted in due process of law. In the earlier First Appeal, defendant No, 1 of this suit was appointed as receiver in respect of the properties after possession was declared in the 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding in his favour. from interfering with possession of defendant No. 1 until evicted in due process of law. In the earlier First Appeal, defendant No, 1 of this suit was appointed as receiver in respect of the properties after possession was declared in the 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding in his favour. After dismissal of the First Appeal in 1976 when defendant No. 1 continued in possession, plaintiff has filed the present suit only for a declaration that he is the nearest reversioner of Bharat. 3. Main question for consideration in this appeal is whether suit for mere declaration is maintainable. Trial Court has dismissed the suit finding that mere suit for declaration is not maintainable. 4. u/s 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a suit for more declaration without consequential relief which is available to be sought for, is not maintainable. It reads as follows : "34. Discretion of Court as to declaration of status of right: Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such character or right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief : Provided that no Court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title omits to do so. Explanation--A trustee of property is a "person interested to deny" a title adverse to the title of someone who is not in existence and for whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee". 5. Mr. P. Palit, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that property of Bharat being under receiver by order of this Court in the earlier First Appeal who has not yet been discharged, suit for more than declaration is maintainable as the property is yet custodia legis. He has relied upon the decision reported in ( Hiralal Patni Vs. Loonkaram Sethiya and Others, ) where it has been observed that:- "If a receiver is appointed in a suit without his tenure being expressly defined, he will continue to be receiver till he is discharged. He has relied upon the decision reported in ( Hiralal Patni Vs. Loonkaram Sethiya and Others, ) where it has been observed that:- "If a receiver is appointed in a suit without his tenure being expressly defined, he will continue to be receiver till he is discharged. It has further been observed : "After the final disposal of the suit as between the parties to the litigation, the receivers' functions are terminated.he would still be answerable to the Court as its officer till he is finally dicharged..." Adopting the aforesaid principle Mr. Palit submitted that defendant No. 1 not having been discharged, he continues in possession as an officer of the Court and property continues to be custodia legis. Therefore, a suit for mere declaration is maintainable since on such declaration plaintiff can approach the Court which appointed defendant No. 1 as receiver to give a direction to deliver the property to him. 6. Decision of the Supreme Court was referred to in a decision of this Court reported in AIR 1983 Ori. E9 (Ichhabati Mchanty and Anr. v. Bishnu Charan Paital and Ors.), where it has been held that a party receiver when continues in possession after disposal of the suit is to deliver possession and render accounts on direction of the Court even if no decree for recovery of possession was passed against him. In the said decision, plaintiff in possession of the disputed land sought relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. He was appointed as receiver. Suit was dismissed. It was held that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in that suit having been found to have title, plaintiff who was a trespasser in possession, lost the said possession when Court appointed him as receiver. He was in possession on behalf of the rightful owner and on direction of the Court which appointed him as receiver; he is to deliver possession even if there was no decree for recovery of possession against him. This decision is relied upon by Mr. Palit to gain strength for his argument that on declaration of status, plaintiff would become the rightful owner and can get possession from defendant No. 1 even if no decree for recovery of possession is passed against defendant No. 1. 7. Question of possession of receiver came for decision in anoth3r decision of this Court reported in 1987 CLT 505 (Mulshankar Ojha v. Paraswar Khuntia). 7. Question of possession of receiver came for decision in anoth3r decision of this Court reported in 1987 CLT 505 (Mulshankar Ojha v. Paraswar Khuntia). This decision arose out of an execution proceeding by the landlord decree holder for eviction of tenant. Decree-holder was a receiver in a partition suit. He continued in receiver in the final decree proceeding and filed the eviction proceeding under the House Rent Control Act, 1967 as receiver-landlord. On the facts of that case it was held that the continued as receiver even after disposal of the suit and accordingly, execution of the order of eviction by him was maintainable. Decision of Supreme Court and of this Court were referred to in the said decision. 8. Mr. P. V. Ramdas, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-defendant No. 1 on the other hand submitted that the decision relied upon by Mr. Palit would have no application to the facts of the present appeal when party receiver who had right to possession u/s 145 Cr. P, C. continued in possession after dismissal of the suit. 9. There is force in contention of Mr. P. V. Ramdas. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Hiralal Patni Vs. Loonkaram Sethiya and Others, function of the receiver comes to an end after final disposal of the suit. Therefore, the order u/s 145, Cr. P. C, which remained dormant during pendency of the suit revived. Defendant No.1 who was entitled to be in possession under the declaration of his possession on the date of preliminary order until evicted in due process of law continued in possession as of right. Court which appointed him as receiver was not required to call upon him to be answerable at instance of any other person except the rightful person. Since he was the rightful person in possession by the declaration u/s 145, Cr. P, C, no formal order of discharge was necessary. If plaintiff would have obtained as order from this Court that defendant No.1 would continue as receiver till the inters dispute between him and defendant No. 1 is adjudicated, question for consideration would have been different. When in absence of such direction rightful person continued in possession until evicted in due process of law, a mere suit for declaration would hot be maintainable in view of the language of Section 34 proviso of the Specific Relief Act. When in absence of such direction rightful person continued in possession until evicted in due process of law, a mere suit for declaration would hot be maintainable in view of the language of Section 34 proviso of the Specific Relief Act. Plaintiff ought to have sought for consequential relief of recovery of possession from defendant No.1. 10. In the result, there is no merit, in this appeal which is accordingly, dismissed. However in the peculiar circumstances not the case, parties shall bear their own costs throughout. Final Result : Dismissed