JUDGMENT : Sanjay K Agrawal, J. The petitioners are judgment-debtors in Execution Case No.69-A/2005 (Noorjaha and another v. Shahjaha and others) and the respondents are decree-holders. The trial Court delivered judgment & decree on 28-4-2011 passing a decree of declaration in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs that they are title holders of share of the suit land. It has attained finality, as it was not taken-up in the higher forum questioning that judgment & decree. Thereafter, the respondents/title holders laid an execution application on 17-5- 2017 before the executing court for delivering half of the share of the suit accommodation in which the judgment-debtors filed an objection that decree is not executable and therefore execution be rejected, as the decree is declaratory, which has been rejected by the executing court finding no merit. 2. Mr. Ashok Soni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/judgment-debtors, would submit that the executing court is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the execution application ignoring the fact that the decree passed by the trial Court on 28-4-2011 is only a declaratory decree declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled for half of the share in the suit house, therefore, it is not executable and thus, the executing court is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application. 3. Mr. Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/decree-holders, would support the impugned order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. At the outset, it would be appropriate to notice the decree passed by the trial court in favour of the respondents in the civil suit preferred by them which states as under: - ^^32- okniz'u Ø-1 ls yxk;r 4 ds fu"d"kksZ ds ifjis{; esa oknhx.k dk nkok vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS] izfroknhx.k viuk ,oa oknh dk okn O;; ogu djsaxsa] vf/koDrk 'kqYd lwph vuqlkj vFkok izekf.kr gksus ij nksuksa esa tks de gks] ns; gksxkA vr% fu.kZ; ds vuqlj.k esa fuEukuqlkj vkKfIr cukbZ tk;s %& 1- oknhx.k oknedku ds 1@2 va'k ds Lokeh gS] 2- izfroknhx.k viuk ,oa oknh dk okn&O; ogu djsaxsA 3- vf/koDrk 'kqYd izekf.kr gksus ij lwph vuqlkj tks Hkh de gks] ns; gksxkA^^ 6. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which reads as under: - “34. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which reads as under: - “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.” 7. It is trite law that a declaratory decree merely declares the right of the decree-holder vis-a-vis the judgment-debtor but does not direct the judgment-debtor to do or refrain from doing any particular act or thing. 8. As back as on 18-12-1997, in the matter of State of M.P. v. Mangilal Sharma, (1998) 2 SCC 510 , Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that declaratory decree is not executable and the executing court has no jurisdiction to direct payment of salary or grant any other consequential relief which does not flow directly and necessarily from the declaratory decree, and observed as under: - “6. A declaratory decree merely declares the right of the decree-holder vis-a-vis the judgment-debtor and does not in terms direct the judgment-debtor to do or refrain from doing any particular act or thing. Since in the present case decree does not direct reinstatement or payment of arrears of salary the executing court could not issue any process for the purpose as that would be going outside or beyond the decree. The respondent as a decree-holder was free to seek his remedy for arrears of salary in the suit for declaration. The executing court has no jurisdiction to direct payment of salary or grant any other consequential relief which does not flow directly and necessarily from the declaratory decree. It is not that if in a suit for declaration where the plaintiff is able to seek further relief he must seek that relief though he may not be in need of that further relief. ...” 9. It is not that if in a suit for declaration where the plaintiff is able to seek further relief he must seek that relief though he may not be in need of that further relief. ...” 9. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it would appear from the careful perusal of the decree that the decree is merely declaratory in nature and no such consequential relief of recovery of possession pursuant to the decree is granted in favour of the plaintiffs/decree-holders, therefore, the decree passed by the trial Court was unequivocal and un-executable and consequently, the executing court is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application and as such, the impugned order is set aside as well as the execution application filed for possession is also set aside and the execution case stands closed, as the decree is only declaratory in nature. 10. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s).