JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. Though the notices have been issued, nobody responded on behalf of the respondents. 2. The proceeding has been initiated by the plaintiff/respondent for delivery of the possession of the suit property. The said suit was decreed, against which appeal was preferred. The order of the learned Trial Court was affirmed. 3. Being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred and this Hon'ble Court by means of order dated July 8, 1999 while admitting the appeal has been pleased to frame a question of law as under:- "Whether in view of the findings of the learned courts below to the effect that the plaintiff was not in possession of a part of the suit property, the suit was maintainable to the said extent, as no prayer for recovery of possession had been prayed for in the suit? 4. It has been submitted that the appellants/petitioners inherited and in physical possession of 30 decimals of land out of 64 decimals of land on Plot No. 695, Khatian no. 171, J.L. 192, Mouza-Dhuipara, Police Station-Mohanpur, District-Paschim Midnapore along with structures thereon. It has been further submitted that they are residing in the said premises. The said plot over which structures have been raised is in possession of the appellants since their predecessors. But subsequently Srihari Jana was allegedly in possession of the aforesaid suit property claiming himself to be an adopted son of late Kshirodmoni Dasi over the said 30 decimals of land on the basis of rights recorded in R.S. Settlement as well as L.R. Settlement and further they used to pay rent to the Government of West Bengal. The present respondent/opposite party is the daughter of late Krishna Jana who owned and possessed 34 decimals of land out of 64 decimals and the property is duly demarcated and they are enjoying the respective demarcated portion. But the respondent/opposite party in the year 1990 filed a suit against the appellants/petitioners for declaration as well as permanent injunction in respect of 50 decimals of land inherited and possessed by the appellants claiming themselves the absolute owners of the entire property and further threatening to dispossess them. But the respondent/opposite party in the year 1990 filed a suit against the appellants/petitioners for declaration as well as permanent injunction in respect of 50 decimals of land inherited and possessed by the appellants claiming themselves the absolute owners of the entire property and further threatening to dispossess them. The suit was contested and the same was finally disposed of vide judgment and decree dated July 22, 1996 by the learned Munsif declaring the title of the plaintiff/opposite party over the said suit property against which appeal was preferred, which was dismissed resulting in filing of the aforesaid second appeal and the same was admitted by this Court on the above mentioned substantial question of law. 5. Though the Courts decided the question of title in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, but no consequential relief for delivery of possession was not claimed and as such this Hon'ble Court while entertaining the instant appeal has framed the question as reproduced herein above and it has been submitted that in the absence of consequential relief for possession, the suit is not maintainable. 6. In support of the aforesaid submissions the appellants have relied on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Venkataraja and Others v. Vidyane Doureradjaperumal (D) Thrs. Lrs. and Others 2013(3) ICC 250 wherein the Apex Court has also referred to a judgment in Vinay Krishna v. Keshav Chandra and Another reported in 1993 SC 957. 7. As in the instant case also, the defendants are in possession of the land in question over which structures have been erected and they are residing there, such relief for possession ought to have been asked for. 8. The very purpose of the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings, and also the loss of revenue of court fees. Further the 9th Report of the Law Commission of India, 1958 had suggested certain amendments in the proviso according to which the plaintiff could seek declaratory relief without seeking any consequential relief if he sought permission of the court to make his subsequent claim in another suit/proceedings. However, such said amendment was not accepted and there is no provision analogous to such suggestion in the Act 1963. Mere declaratory decree remains no executable in most cases generally. 9. However, such said amendment was not accepted and there is no provision analogous to such suggestion in the Act 1963. Mere declaratory decree remains no executable in most cases generally. 9. In view of the above, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable as they did not claim any consequential relief. 10. Thus, the second appeal succeeds and the judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below are hereby set aside. 11. I make no order as to costs. 12. The Registry is directed to send down the lower courts records forthwith. 13. The Registry is also directed to supply photostat certified copy of this order to the applicant, if applied for, on urgent basis. Appeal allowed.