In Clara Auroro de Branganca v. Sylvia Angela Alvares, the parties executed a power of attorney empowering a person to execute a deed of partition in respect of specified properties, but, the power-of attorney was void against some the parties because of their mental disability, and the partition deed executed by the power-of-attorney holder included other properties besides those which had been specified and thus the power was used for a purpose other than the one or which it had been executed.

The Court was of the view that, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the power of attorney was exhausted after the execution of the partition deed and, therefore, there was no need to cancel it If the power-of-attorney was executed when some of the executants were under a mental disability, any partition deed executed in pursuance thereof would have to be set aside. 

Merely because the partition deed had already been executed and the power vested under the power of-attorney stood exhausted, the court cannot and should not decline to grant a declaration that the power-of-attorney was a nullity or void and could not be acted upon. If such declaration was not given and the power-of-attorney was left outstanding, it would give rise to a reasonable apprehension that it might be used to the detriment of the parties who were mentally unsound, because if the partition deed was set aside or declared not enforceable, the power-of-attorney holder might claim that a proper partition deed could still be executed by him and execute and present another partition deed for registration and expose the parties to further litigation. 

The Court held that, therefore, declaration that the power-of-attorney was a nullity and cancellation of the same as such under section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963) would be justified. Undoubtedly, section 31 can be taken recourse to only in a case where a person against whom a written instrument is void or void able apprehends that if such instrument is left outstanding, it may cause him serious injury.


The grant or refusal of the relief of declaration and injunction under the provision of section 34 is discretionary. 

The plaintiff cannot claim the relief as of right. It has to be granted according to sound principles of law and ex debito justitaje.


The plaintiff must have a present interest or right as distinguished from a mere chance or vague expectancy. So a complete stranger cannot obtain a declaration.

A complete stranger whose interest is in no way affected by another's legal character or who has no interest in another's property is not entitled to maintain suit under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.