JUDGMENT N.P. Singh, J. 1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.8.1993 passed by the Vth Addl. District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 4-A of 1993, dismissing the suit. 2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the instant civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction apprehending dispossession of his land. The case of the appellant/plaintiff was that in the family arrangement lands mentioned in the Schedules A & B of the plaint were allotted to him and he was in possession thereof. The appellant was thereafter adopted as a son in another family. After the adoption of the appellant, respondent/defendant Nos. 3 and 4, his natural brothers started threatening the appellant from dispossessing him from the land allotted to him in the family arrangement. 3. The stand of the respondents/defendants 3 and 4 in their written state- ments was that the appellant/plaintiff had seized to be a member of their family after his adoption in another family. The land allotted to the appellant/plaintiff in the family arrangement had reverted back to them. The respondents/defendants subsequently realising the legal position of the adoption of the appellant admitted the claim of the appellant. 4. The Trial Court/however, refused to grant a declaratory decree on mere admission of the claim by the respondents holding that grant of declaratory decree is the discretion of the Court. 5. Mr. R.K. Samaiya, learned Counsel for the appellant, has contended that the Trial Court has not considered the case in its proper legal perspective and has wrongly refused to decree the suit. He further contended that declaratory decree can be granted under the general provisions of Civil Procedure Code, under Section 9 or Order 7, Rule 7. 6. Contention of Mr. Samaiya is well founded. 7. It is well settled that a declaratory decree which is not barred under any law can be granted to the plaintiff. 8. In Ramnarayan and Ors. v. Firm Mangeram Radheshyam Hardoi and Anr., AIR 1979 MP 61 , a Division Bench of this Court has observed : "Court's power to grant declaratory decrees is not limited to the terms of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Declaratory decrees can well be made by the Courts under the general provisions of the Civil Procedure Code as Section 9 or Order 7 Rule 7. Declaratory decrees can well be made by the Courts under the general provisions of the Civil Procedure Code as Section 9 or Order 7 Rule 7. The exercise of jurisdiction to grant such declaratory reliefs beyond the terms of that section shall depend upon the facts of each case. Such a declaration may be granted when it is essential as a step to a relief in some other case or when a declaration in itself is a substantial relief and has immediate coercive effect." 9. Section 12(b) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 provides that property which vested in the adopted child before the adoption shall continue to vest in such person subject to the obligation, if any, attaching to the ownership of the property. 10. Besides, the prayer for grant of declaration of his title in respect of the land allotted to the plaintiff/appellant in the family arrangement, the appellant has also prayed for substantial relief for grant of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants/respondents from interfering with his possession over the land al- lotted to him in the family arrangement. The civil suit filed by the appellant was, therefore, not only for declaration of title but also for substantial relief of injunction. The Trial Court, therefore, erred in law in refusing to decree the suit. 11. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the judgment and decree under appeal cannot be sustained. Accordingly they are set aside and in the result the suit is decreed and the appeal is allowed but without costs.