Introduction

• The Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) is a legislation based on the report of the Ninth Law Commission of India.
• Specific Relief can be granted for enforcing individual civil rights and not for the mere purpose of enforcing penal laws.
• The act provides for reliefs under categories namely recovery of possession of property, recession of contracts, cancellation of instruments, declaratory decrees, and injunctions.

Recovery of Possession of Immovable Property

• It is a settled principle of law that the owner of the property can get back his possession only by resorting to due process of law.
• The Recovery of Specific Immovable Property under the SRA is particularly provided under Sections 5 and 6.
• Section 5 deals with the recovery of specific immovable property.
  • It states that a person entitled to the possession of specific immovable property may recover it in the manner provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
• Section 6 deals with the suit by person dispossessed of immovable property. It states that —

(1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person through whom he has been in possession or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit.

(2) No suit under this section shall be brought—

(a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or

(b) against the Government.

(3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed.

(4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof.

Section 5, SRA

• The essence of this section is ‘title,’ i.e., the person who has the better title is a person entitled to the possession.
• The title may be of ownership or of possession.
• A suit under Section 5 is an ordinary suit under the general law and the plaintiff has to prove that he has a better title.
• In Prataprai N. Kothari v. John Braganza (1999) the Supreme Court held that it is a settled law that even the owner of the property can get back his possession only by resorting to due process of law.
• In V. Rajeshwari v. T. C. Saravanabava (2004) the Supreme Court held that a decision as to a specified part of a property in question may not constitute res judicata in respect of any subsequent proceeding regarding the entire property.

Section 6, SRA

Applicability of Section 6, SRA

• Section 6 is applicable if the plaintiff proves:
  • That he is in lawful possession of immovable property in dispute.
  • That he had been dispossessed of such property without his consent and without due process of law.
  • That dispossession took place within six months of the date of the suit.
• The plaintiff in the suit under Section 6 need not establish title, rather possession in the context of this section means legal possession which may exist with or without actual possession and with or without rightful origin.
• In K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1954), the Bombay High Court held that after the expiry of the tenancy agreement, the tenant continues to hold lawful possession and cannot be dispossessed unless the owner gets a decree of eviction against him.

Recovery of Possession Where Possession is Gratuitous

• Where the grant of possession was gratuitous, the owner had the right to reclaim possession even without the knowledge of the person in possession.
• In the case of Anamika Mallick v. Ajoy Kumar Roy (2000) the party in possession of a garage was using it by virtue of his sister being the owner. The party was dispossessed. The Trial Court ordered restoration which was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court held this to be an erroneous verdict.

Prayer for Declaration of Title

Normally, a suit instituted under Section 6 is not maintainable in the absence of a declaration of title although in Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah v. Muddasani Sarojana (2016) the Supreme Court has held that a suit for possession simpliciter without declaration is maintainable.

No Appeal or Review

• No appeal lies from a decision of the Court under Section 6, nor is any review permissible.
• Where a suit upon a title is wrongly treated as a suit under Section 6 an appeal may lie.
• A revision lies from the verdict of Section 6.
• In Gafoor Khan v. Amiruddin (2012), the Rajasthan High Court held that in absence of a jurisdictional error the lower court ‘s verdict cannot be disturbed by the High Court.

Period of Limitation

• A suit under Section 6 must be filed within a period of 6 months of dispossession according to Section 6(2).
• In the case of Beharilal v. Bhuri Devi (1997), the Supreme Court upheld the decision of Rajasthan High Court that time taken in proceedings under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code is to be excluded.

Conclusion

• The remedy of Recovery of Possession of Immovable Property under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 encompasses the possessory title of the rightful possessor through the appropriate intervention by the court, it becomes essential because the Indian Contract Act, 1872 gives only compensation in case of breach of contract.
• Hence such a remedy becomes necessary where damage is not ascertainable, and compensation is not an adequate relief.