Can a plaintiff in a city's eminent domain action continue to seek declaratory relief against the city until after the time of the action has been dismissed?

The answer of Faus in the city's eminent domain action presented the issue that he was owner of the strips. From the time that he filed that answer to the time the action was dismissed, he was not required to file another action to present the same issue as against the city. In Marden v. Bailard, 124 Cal.App.2d 458, at page 465, 268 P.2d 809 at page 813 it was said: 'While that litigation was pending these plaintiffs were not required to commence another action--their declaratory relief action--for the determination of the same issue.' It was not established that either defendant was in adverse possession after the rails and ties were removed. See Faus v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co., supra, 146 Cal.App.2d 370, 303 P.2d 814. The letter from defendant railway to Faus (refusing to 'quiet title' in Faus) was sent on May 15, 1952, before such removal. The present action was not barred by the statute of limitations.