JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Defendants are appellants. Lands of Khata No. 38, detailed in Schedule to the plaint of Title Suit No. 10 of 1979, admittedly, belonged to Jainath Goswami, who left behind three sons, including Bhola as one of them, who had l/3rd share. His share was inherited by his only daughter, Manju, whose name was also recorded in the Revisional Survey. She continued in peaceful joint possession of the aforesaid land along with other co-sharers. Kishun Goswami, defendant No. 6, claimed himself to be grand-son of Sadanand Goswami, husband of Manju. 2. A proceeding under Section 145 Cr PC was fought between the plaintiffs, who were admittedly agnates of Manjus father, Bhola, and defendant No. 6 along with his brother Patel Goswami, wherein final order was passed on 3.7.1979 in favour of plaintiffs. 3. However, subsequently by registered sale deed dated 16.11.1978, defendant No. 6 transferred the suit land to defendants 1 to 5. Hence, plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration of title and for further declaration that transfer made by defendant No. 6 in favour of defendants 1 to 5 was not binding on them. 4. The suit was decreed and thereafter appeal filed against the said decree by defendants was also dismissed. Both the Courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact that the suit property was not self acquired property of Manju, rather she had inherited it from her father, Bhola and after her death, under Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, those properties devolved in absence of any issue of Manju upon heirs of his father, i.e. plaintiffs. It was also held that Motilal was not adopted son of Sadanand and Manju, and there was no question of development of the property in question upon defendants. 5. However, it transpired that besides the lands which were subject matter of the proceeding under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code, 10 decimals land of Plot No. 160 was also included in the suit. The suit was merely for declaration without any consequential relief. When the said land was not subject matter of proceeding under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code, it was not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act In respect of aforesaid 10 decimals land. 6. The suit was merely for declaration without any consequential relief. When the said land was not subject matter of proceeding under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code, it was not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act In respect of aforesaid 10 decimals land. 6. In the aforesaid circumstance, impugned judgment and decree is confirmed with modification to the extent that aforesaid 10 decimals land of Plot No. 160 stands excluded and the suit stands dismissed so far the said 10 decimals land is concerned. 7. In the result, this Second appeal is dismissed with the above modification in the impugned judgment and decree. There shall be no order as to costs. Let the lower Court records be sent down immediately.