Is a suit merely for declaration, a suit of civil nature? Give reasons in support of your answer and also refer to case law, if any, on this point.

Question: Is a suit merely for declaration, a suit of civil nature? Give reasons in support of your answer and also refer to case law, if any, on this point.

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Is a suit merely for declaration, a suit of civil nature? Give reasons in support of your answer and also refer to case law, if any, on this point.]

Answer

The Supreme Court in Annie Besant National Girls High School v. Deputy Director of Public Instruction, AIR 1983 SC 526 had held that a suit merely for declaration is a suit of civil nature. . In the above referred famous case, the Supreme Court held that a suit for mere declaration is also a suit of civil nature as because it declares a right of the party to a suit.

In Kumari Regina v. St. Aloysius Higher Elementary School and Anr. 1971 Suppl. S.C.R. 6. appellant had been reduced to the position of an Assistant Teacher from her original post of Headmistress by the Management of the School against which she approached the Educational Authorities and the Divisional Inspector of Schools directed the Management to restore her to the position of Headmistress; when the Management did not do so the appellant filed a suit for the issue of mandatory injunction to the Management of the School and for damages.

This Court held that the rules relating to the recognition and aid, under which the Divisional Inspector of Schools had issued his directions were only administrative instructions by the Government to its Educational Officers and not statutory rules which would give rise to a remedy enforceable at law at the instance of employees of the school aggrieved against the Management.

The present case is not one where any specific performance of the orders issued by respondents Nos. land 2 under the Grant-in-Aid Code is sought; on the contrary, the appellant-plaintiff (Management) challenged the impugned Orders as being ultra vires and beyond the powers of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and since the impugned Orders were likely to affect the appellant-plaintiff adversely it sought a declaration that the Orders were ultra vires.

Such a suit, in our view, would be clearly maintainable and the First Appellate Court’s view on this behalf was right. On merits, the High Court gave no finding whatsoever, but the Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, came to the conclusion that the said Orders were ultra vires and without jurisdiction.

It may be stated that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were not -aggrieved by the finding which had been recorded against them. No appeal was carried by them to the High Court against it and hence they must be regarded as having acquiesced in it. Even otherwise we find that order directing the reinstatement of Smt. Jalajakshi and non-approval of Smt. Manorama Rao is unsustainable in law. We, therefore, confirm that finding.

In view of the decisions given by the Supreme Court in the Annie Besant National Girls High School and Kumari Regina case, it is clear that a suit does not cease to be a suit of civil nature merely because it is in the nature of only declaration. It is a suit of civil nature.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – I of X
2. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – II of X
3. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – III of X
4. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – IV of X
5. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – V of X
6. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VI of X
7. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VII of X
8. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VIII of X
9. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – IX of X
10. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – X of X