IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.185 of 2009 Madhukant Tiwari & Ors Versus Bharat Tiwari & Ors ----------- 6. 03.08.2011 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. The instant second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2009 passed in Title Appeal No. of 1993 by Additional District Judge, F.T.C. III, West Champaran, affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.04.1993 in T.S. No. 47 of 1991 by Munsif, West Champaan. The plaintiff has filed the suit with solitary relief of permanent injunction against the defendants / plaintiffs praying for restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff from suit land or interfering in his possession. The plaintiff has pressed his claim on the basis of the sale deed executed in his favour by vendor Bachcha Tiwari on 30.03.1969 and on the basis of that sale deed the plaintiff has claimed to have come in possession but due to interference in possession by the defendants and threat of dispossession the present suit has been filed. The defendant appeared and contested the statement of fact as well as the relief as prayed by the plaintiff in his plaint. The case of the defendant as pleaded in written statement is that the vendor Bachcha Tiwari has already executed a sale deed dated 17.04.1967 in favour of Paras Tiwari with regard to the suit land and the said Paras Tiwari by sale deed dated 27.04. 1990 had sold the suit land to the defendants. In view of the rival contention of the parties, specific issues 2 with regard to the validity of the sale deed executed by the vendor Bachcha Tiwari in favour of the plaintiff and in favour of Paras Tiwari was framed. After considering the evidence in detail and hearing the submissions of the parties both the courts below have come to the findings that the sale deed alleged to have been executed by the vendor Bachcha Tiwari in favour of Paras Tiwari could not become operative in absence of the payment of consideration money by Paras Tiwari and as such the title never passed to Paras Tiwari. Both the Courts below further came to the finding that in view of the invalidity of the sale deed in favour of Paras Tiwari, the vendor Bachcha Tiwari was fully competent to transfer valid title of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs which he did by executing the sale deed. On the basis of these findings both the Courts have decided the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this appeal has submitted that in view of the provision of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, the finding with regard to the sale deeds in favour of Paras Tiwari or for that matter in favour of defendants could not have been given because the plaintiff who was in a position to claim the relief has omitted to seek the declaration against the sale deeds of the defendants. A perusal of the provision of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act shows that it applies to a suit where the plaintiff has claimed a declaration and has simultaneously omitted the claim further declaration which he was entitled to on that day. In the present suit, the plaintiff has not claimed any declaration rather the suit 3 is only for grant of permanent injunction. Moreover, the concurrent findings of both the Courts below show that the alleged sale deeds in favour of Paras Tiwari had been invalid from its very inception and as such void ab initio. It is well settled that no declaration is required when a document or thing is void ab initio. In this view of the matter there is no force in the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. There is no substantial question of law arising in this appeal for consideration which is accordingly dismissed. Saif (V. Nath, J.)