As per case facts, appellants (defendants) challenged the First Appellate Court's decision granting declaration of title and injunction to respondents (plaintiffs). Plaintiffs had filed prior suits for partition/declaration/injunction and injunction, ... which were dismissed. The current suit for declaration and injunction was dismissed by the Trial Court but allowed by the First Appellate Court. The question arose whether the suit was maintainable given previous withdrawals without liberty and if it was hit by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. Further, could a suit for declaration be decreed without seeking consequential relief of possession, considering Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, when defendants were in possession. Finally, the Court found the suit maintainable, not barred by Order 23 Rule 1(3) & (4) or Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. It confirmed the declaration of title, noting defendants lacked valid title. However, due to plaintiffs' suppression of facts regarding possession and filing multiple suits, the injunction was set aside. Possession would be decided in a pending partition suit, where appellants can claim value for structures but cannot plead title, Order 2 Rule 2, or limitation. The appeal was allowed in part, awarding costs to appellants.