Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1910)20MLJ535
..... instituted under the special provisions of the specific relief act; the entire scope of the suit was to obtain a decision that the plaintiff succeeded to the property on the death of sellathammal. the plaintiff has in the present action merely varied the form of relief by asking for the recovery of possession instead of perpetual injunction, ..... action. what led the plaintiff to come to court then as now was the order of the government on the strength of which srinivasa aiyar obtained possesion of the land and the denial of the plaintiff's title thereto by srinivasa aiyar. section 43 lays down that the whole of the plaintiff' ..... the scope of that suit to refer to the issues. it has been argued with considerable emphasis that the plaintiff then alleged that he was in possesion of the property although it may be that his allegation was false or founded on misconception. but the plaintiff also alleged in the previous suit ..... in possession of the property in december 1891, which the plaintiff says is his cause of action. the main relief he asks for is declaration of his title to these properties and recovery of possession. it will be noticed that in the plaint in the previous suit allusion is made to the same ..... was not in possession at the time of filing the suit and his title was not adjudicated upon. it was held that a subsequent suit for recovery of possession on the same title was not barred under section 43 because the causes of action were different. as the learned judges point out, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1995KAR1683
..... based on title adverse to plaintiff12. a reading of the above provisions, particularly, indicates that under section 5 of the specific relief act, that a person, who has been deprived of his immovable property or its possession, he can file a suit for recovery of that property and possession thereof claiming the decree for possession, of the property on the basis of his title ..... date of dispossession and after the expiry of six months period remedy by suit under section 6 of specific relief act is not available, but, on the basis of long standing possession on the basis of possessory title, the person dispossessed may file suit for recovery of possession of immovable property within twelve years of his dispossession against one who has dispossessed the plaintiff ..... by civil procedure code 1908 i.e., in other words, by filing the suit for recovery of immovable property and its possession on the basis of title or right or interest therein may be possessory title and as per language of sub-section (4) of section 6 of the specific relief act itself nothing in section 6 shall bar such a suit to establish title and ..... as well on the basis of which a person alleges to be entitled to the decree. so, in the suit for possession, otherwise than under section 6 of specific relief act or for injunction, plaintiff no doubt, has .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1120; 1993(41)BLJR421; JT1993(1)SC35; 1992(3)SCALE454; 1993Supp(4)SCC492; Supp3SCR544
..... as there was no legal infirmity in the deed which made it unenforceable, the suit was not maintainable under section 31 of the specific relief act and that the only right or the appellant was to file a suit for recovery of the balance of the consideration payable to her under the agreement to sell. the high court was further of the view that ..... show that it was barred by the provision contained in section 16 of the specific relief act. the defendant did not choose to adopt that course and remained content with defending the suit filed by the appellant for cancellation of the agreement to sell dated november 12, 1974 and for recovery of the possession of the property. even if it is found that the ..... recorded by the trial court that time was not the essence of the contract. the high court was, however, of the view that the requirements of section 31 of the specific relief act for passing a decree for cancellation of an instrument were not satisfied in the present case in as much as the agreement to sell is neither void not voidable as ..... defendant. the said power conferred on the court does not enable it to override the statutory limitations contained in section 16 of the specific relief act, 1963 and section 54 of the limitation act, 1963 which preclude the grant of the relief of specific performance of a contract except within the period prescribed by the section.10. the decree passed by the high court whereby the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
..... prior partition and the defendant having been in possession and the plaintiff being not in possession he having failed to ask for the further relief of recovery of possession the suit is hit by section 34 of the specific relief act and it has been rightly dismissed, 8. the precise questions to be decided, therefore, are whether the suit land was inherited jointly by ..... possession which the plaintiff did not ask for; and that the suit was hit by section 34 of the specific relief act as the plaintiff who was not in possession did not seek further relief of recovery of possession. the suit was accordingly dismissed. hence this second appeal. 6. mr. w. kulabidhu singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits : both the courts held ..... the daughter, inakhunbi devi was not impleaded; and that the suit was not hit by section 34 of the specific relief act as the plaintiff prayed for permanent injunction as a consequential relief. the trial court accordingly decreed the suit declaring the title and for recovery of possession. on appeal, the learned additional judge found that on the death of baikul singh, the defendant and ..... been found to have been with the defendant and not with the plaintiff the relief of injunction cannot be granted. the relief of recovery of possession was not asked for. would the suit consequently be barred under the proviso to section 34 of the specific relief act? under section 34 of the act any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(4)BomCR318; (1995)97BOMLR30
..... of carrying on the demolition of the structure. it is in this light that the suit filed by the appellants for recovery of possession under section 6 of the specific relief act appears to be maintainable and therefore the trial court is expected to adjudicate it strictly on the basis of the alleged possession ..... and/or tenancy rights of even any type of possession on a part or portion of the said building.6. admittedly, section 6 of the specific relief act provides a summary and quick remedy for a person who is in possession and has been illegally dispossessed therefrom without his consent. this remedy is ..... on or after 7th september, 1993. it was urged in this regard that the suit though styled as a suit under section 6 of the specific relief act was in fact a suit for declaration and injunction and not suit per se for restoration simpliciter. the respondents refused to admit that after the ..... for temporary injunction dated 6th may, 1994.3. both these applications were filed in a suit instituted by the appellants under section 6 of the specific relief act, 1963 praying that the respondents, their heirs or legal representatives be ordered to restore the possession of an area of 210 sq.mts. to the ..... that a plaintiff, in a suit under section 6 of the specific act, has also a right to obtain a relief seeking to protect his interest in securing the effective execution of any decree which might be passed in his favour for recovery of possession even in case of a building which has been already .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1966Ker179
..... had his position been rendered somewhat worse by his being dispossessed, could, by instituting a suit within six months for recovery of possession under section 9 of the specific relief act, have recovered possession even as against a person who might establish a better title, it was only right and just ..... months for recovery of possession under section 9 of the act, can he bring a suit for recovery of his possession relying on his prior possession? on this point the authorities are not uniform.5. the statement of law is thus summed up in pollock & mulla, indian contract and specific relief act, 8th edition ..... stated in the judgment. the possession of the plaintiff was sufficient evidence of title as owner against the defendant. by section 9 of the specific relief act (act 1 of 1877), if the plaintiff had been dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law, he could, by a suit instituted within ..... ilr 26 cal 579 seems to rest, it is necessary to make but two observations. the first is that section 9 of the specific relief act cannot possibly be held to take away any remedy available with reference to the well-recognised doctrine expressed in pollock and wright on possession ..... more than six months to elapse after his dispossession, and therefore, lost the possibility of recovering possession, by a suit under section 9 of the specific relief act, upon mere proof of previous possession.' 13. distinguishing (1893) ilr 20 cal 834 (pc) in the above manner, the calcutta high court in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
..... abovenamed satradhikar. being aggrieved he instituted title suit no. 43/2004 in the court of the civil judge (senior division), jorhat under section 6 of the specific relief act, 1963 praying for a decree for recovery of possession of the tea estate. the said satradhikar contested the suit by filing his written statement and adduced evidence. the learned court below by judgment and ..... allahabad high court in chunni and anr. (supra) while observing that a decree in a suit under section 6 of the specific relief act, 1963 does not bar or preclude a suit for title praying for consequential relief other than recovery of possession held that in determining whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interim injunction the court will have to apply its mind ..... 1995) 2 scc 665 expressed itself in the following terms-it is trite to say that section 6 of the specific relief act gives a summary remedy to the plaintiff to seek restoration of possession from the defendant within six months of illegal recovery of possession by the defendant, without referring to the title of the plaintiff and defendant. it is a possessory ..... kumar pandey and ors. v. gulbahar sheikh and ors. : (2004)4scc664 prescribing a remedy of regular suit to a unsuccessful party in a suit under section 6 of the specific relief act, 1963. as inspite thereof, the satradhikar refused to hand over the possession of the tea estate to the appellant/petitioner and continued with his possession thereof, the appellant/petitioner instituted .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1984Bom290; 1984(2)BomCR253; 1984MhLJ268
..... 41(1) include even the specific relief act and in particular section 6 of the specific relief act. if this is so, then notwithstanding the remedy provided for in section 6 of the specific relief act any suit between a landlord and a tenant and a licensor and a licensee relating to the recovery of possession of immovable property ..... a landlord wrongfully dispossess a person who happens to be a tenant, the remedy provided for recovery of immoveable property, the possession of which has been wrongfully taken in s. 6 of the specific relief act is not taken away by what mr. mhasmane. calls the plenary language contained in section ..... party is irrelevant. the only issue that has to be decided in a suit under section 9 (of the old specific relief act) and under section 6 of the present specific relief act is only relating to the possession on the plaintiff on the date on which the he is said to have been ..... law and thereafter in paragraph 11 of his plaint the he has mentioned as follows ; -'the plaintiff says that this suit is filed specific relief act'.3. the respondent prayed that the petitioners be ordered and decreed to hand over forthwith cavant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to ..... respondent otherwise in than in accordance with law and, therefore, the respondent was constrained to file the aforesaid suit under section 6 of the specific relief act. the suit was filed on 28th october 1982. the suit was filed on 28th october 1982. after narrating the circumstances in which the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2008)110BOMLR1114; 2008(5)MhLj279
..... is forcibly dispossessed by the defendant, landlord can file the suit for possession under section 9. the division bench observed as follows:section 9, specific relief act is in these terms:if any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or ..... the learned single judge of the madras high court had relied upon an earlier authority of madras high court under section 9 of the then specific relief act and held that only the tenant, who was dispossessed, could file a suit under section 9 and not the landlord. it is material to ..... suit was filed within six months from the date of dispossession, the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree under section 6 of the specific relief act.8. the learned counsel for the contesting defendants/applicants contended that if the tenant of the plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed from the house, the ..... within six months from the date of dispossession. the learned trial court passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff under section 6 of the specific relief act. the said judgment and decree have been challenged in the present revision application.5. heard the learned counsel for the parties. perused the impugned ..... of them.2. to state in brief, the plaintiff-respondent filed regular civil suit no. 11 of 1989 under section 6 of the specific relief act, 1963 for possession of the suit property on the ground that the contesting defendants had forcibly taken possession of the suit property by throwing .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR716
..... act deals with declaratory decrees and provides that any person entitled to any legal character or to any ..... on behalf of the defendants as regards the maintainability of the suit itself i.e. main relief and that is in the light of the proviso to section 34 of the specific relief act, 1963. the submission is that the suit was bound to fail in the absence of a prayer for recovery of possession of the plots sold.7. section 34 of the said ..... costs of the action, and so is placed in as good a position as he held at the time of the tender.16. at page 975 of indian contract and specific relief act by pollock & mulla, it is stated that the law considers a party who has entered into a contract to deliver goods or pay money to another as having substantially performed ..... be decreed even with reference to the portions of which the plaintiff has been in possession. in the absence of specific prayer for the recovery of possession of the property sold by the said sale deeds to the defendants, the suit for declaratory relief filed by the plaintiffs was clearly not maintainable and in this view of the matter also, the dismissal of .....Tag this Judgment!