JUDGMENT(Oral) 1. This second appeal is by the defendants who have lost in both the Courts below. They have preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the two Courts below declaring respondents No. 2 and 3 owner of one fourth undivided share each in the suit property comprising of total area of 9.615 hectares forming part of several survey numbers in village Ghousa, Tahsil Kurwai, District Vidisha. The Courts below vide the impugned judgment and decree have also directed the revenue authorities to delete the names of the appellants from the khasra entries and in its place substitute the names of respondents No. 2 and 3 as owner in respect of half undivided share in the suit property. 2. This appeal was admitted for final hearing by this Court vide its order dated 29th October, 2005 on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the mere suit for declaration filed by the respondent plaintiff is maintainable without consequential relief in view of section 34 of the Specific Relief Act?” 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this second appeal are that the respondents No. 2 and 3 along with their late mother Kasturi Bai had filed a civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against the appellants as also against respondents No. 4,5 and 6. The declaration that was prayed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 in their suit against the appellants was that they be declared owner of one fourth undivided share each in respect of half undivided share in the suit property left by their late father Nirpatia at the time of his death in 1978. It was alleged by respondents No. 2 and 3 in their suit that the appellants have wrongly got the entire suit property mutated in their names with the revenue authorities and, therefore, a declaration was sought by them that they both are entitled to one fourth undivided share each in the suit property and a consequential prayer was made for direction to the revenue authorities to delete the names of the appellants and substitute their names to the extent of their share in the suit property. The suit as filed by respondents No. 2 and 3 against the appellants has been decreed by both the Courts below in their favour. The suit as filed by respondents No. 2 and 3 against the appellants has been decreed by both the Courts below in their favour. The appellants in their written statement had taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the suit as framed was not maintainable without making a prayer for consequential relief of possession. Issue No. 6 was framed by the trial Court on this objection to the maintainability of the suit taken by the appellants in their written statement. This issue regarding maintainability of the suit was decided by the trial Court as also by the first appellate Court in favour of respondents No. 2 and 3 as it was found that respondents No. 2 and 3 being the co-owner of the joint family property left by their late father were deemed to be in possession of the suit property and, therefore, they were not required to make a separate prayer for consequential relief of possession in the suit. This second appeal has been admitted for final hearing only on one substantial question of law as to whether the suit filed by respondents No. 2 and 3 against the appellants was maintainable in the absence of prayer for consequential relief of possession in view of the provisions contained in section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for brevity, the “Act”). 4. It is not disputed by Shri Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the suit property admeasuring 9.615 hectares forming part of several survey numbers in village Ghousa, Tahsil Kurwai, District Vidisha was jointly owned by the late father of respondents 2 and 3 as also by the late father of the appellants. The appellants are the first cousin of respondents No. 2 and 3. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that partition of the suit property had not taken place during the life time of late fathers of the parties to the suit. The character of the suit property admittedly was a joint family property. The need for respondents No. 2 and 3 to file a suit for declaration against the appellants arose because the appellants had wrongly got their half undivided share in the suit property mutated in their name and started claiming themselves to be the exclusive owner of the entire suit property. The need for respondents No. 2 and 3 to file a suit for declaration against the appellants arose because the appellants had wrongly got their half undivided share in the suit property mutated in their name and started claiming themselves to be the exclusive owner of the entire suit property. The plea of respondents No. 2 and 3 in their suit was that they had never relinquished their right in the suit property and, according to them, mutation of their share in the suit property by the appellants was wholly inappropriate and wrong. Section 34 of the Act entitles a person to seek declaration of status or right in the suit property. For the sake of convenience, section 34 of the Act is extracted below :- “34. Discretion of Court as to declaration of status or 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 or some one who is not in existence, and whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee.” 5. The relief of declaration that may be granted by the Court under section 34 is of discretionary in nature. However, the discretion that has to be exercised is a judicial discretion and has to be based on well settled principles. For granting a declaration as prayed for by the plaintiffs in the suit, the plaintiff must have a personal interest or right as distinguished from a mere chance or vague expectancy to get a share or interest in the suit property. The discretionary relief that can be granted under section 34 of the Act is based upon principles contained in legal maxim ‘ex debito justiciae’. The discretionary relief that can be granted under section 34 of the Act is based upon principles contained in legal maxim ‘ex debito justiciae’. However, there is a rider in the nature of proviso appended to section 34 of the Act and that provides that no Court shall make a declaration contemplated by section 34 where the plaintiff omits to seek further relief than a mere declaration. The bar to the grant of relief contained in the proviso to section 34 would not apply to the facts of the present case because the respondents No. 2 and 3 who were the plaintiffs before the trial Court admittedly had one fourth undivided share each in the suit property on the date of filing of the suit. As it was, not disputed by the appellants that partition of the suit property had not taken place during the life time of their late fathers or even thereafter till filing of the suit, respondents No. 2 and 3 as also the appellants are deemed to be in constructive possession of the suit property and, therefore, the respondents No. 2 and 3 were not required to seek a separate relief of possession. Here, at this stage, it would be relevant to notice the provisions contained in Order VII Rule 7 CPC which provides as under : “7. Relief to be specifically stated -- Every plaint shall state specifically the relief which the plaintiff claims either simply or in the alternative, and it shall not be necessary to ask for general or other relief which may always be given as the Court may think just to the same extent as if it had been asked for. And the same rule shall apply to any relief claimed by the defendant in his written statement.” 6. A bare perusal of the above statutory provisions contained in Order VII Rule 7 CPC would show that it is within the realm of the plaintiffs to formulate appropriate reliefs for them which may be necessary in a given factual matrix and they were not required to have necessarily prayed for relief of possession when they were satisfied by the declaration to be given by the Court in their favour that they were the owner of one fourth undivided share each in the suit property. The decree of declaration granted by the Courts below in favour of respondents No. 2 and 3 to the effect tht they had one fourth undivided share each in the suit property is based not only on admission of the appellants but also there is ample evidence on record of the trial Court to support the said conclusion which cannot be faulted with in the present appeal. Both the Courts below were absolutely right in their conclusion that respondents No. 2 and 3 were not required to claim separate relief of possession while seeking a declaration regarding their right in the suit property. They were in deemed possession of their share on the date of the suit. This Court is of the considered view that it was the choice of respondents No. 2 and 3 being the plaintiffs in the suit to have simply made a prayer for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction in the form of direction to the revenue authorities to delete the names of the appellants from khasra entries and to substitute their names to the extent of their shares in the suit property. 7. In view of the foregoing, the substantial question of law that was framed by this Court at the time of admission of the present appeal is thus answered against the appellants and in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2. This appeal is deviod of any merit and is, therefore, dismissed with costs throughout.