Digest of specific relief Act

 S.6 - Question of title is irrelevant in a suit instituted u/s 6 as such a suit is tried summarily and the relief which the Courts are competent to grant is one of recovery alone and not any other relief to grant which question of title will crop us even incidentally - Decree passed u/s 6 is neither appealable nor liable to be reviewed - Revisional jurisdiction will have to be declined unless a very strong case is made out. (Rosily Vs Annam) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 368 (Kerala) 

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.6 - Suit for declaration of title and possession - Property purchased through sale deed - Area mentioned in sale deed refers to properties possessed by respondent - Merely because some of property has not been mentioned in sale deed or in prayer clause of plaint does not mean that respondent was not entitled to possession of said part of land and moreso when complete description of said land was given in plaint and evidence was led to effect that said land was fully described in sale deed - Such finding of fact arrived at by trial Court and Appellate Court based on evidence could not be interfered with in second appeal. (Jag Mahinder Vs Chander and others) AIR 2004 Delhi 150

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.6 - Suit for possession - Agreement to purchase two flats between developer and plaintiff - Plaintiff was to make internal changes at his own cost - Developer gave possession of two flats which then consisted of outer walls on four sides without any partition, doors and windows - Plaintiff erected walls, partition doors, windows etc. at his own costs -  Appellants wrongfully and illegally broken into the flats and obtained forcible possession - Case of developer that as plaintiff did not pay full consideration, he sold the flats to appellants - No evidence of transfer of flat by developer to alleged bonafide purchasers - Held, Courts below were justified in holding that plaintiff was put in possession of the suit flats and that he was wrongfully dispossessed by defendants without following due process of law and decreed the suit. (Sudhir Jaggi & Anr. Vs Sunil Akash Sinha Choudhury & Ors.) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 566 (S.C.) : 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 540 (S.C.)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.6 - Suit for possession - In a suit filed u/s 6 of the Act, Court cannot adjudicate title - Court can restore possession only if it is found that defendant had taken it illegally or without due process of law. (Arya Samaj Shri Karanpur Vs Prithvi Raj & Anr.) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 608 (Rajasthan)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.6 - Suit u/s 6 of the Act - Dismissal of suit - No appeal lies - Proper remedy of the party aggrieved is to file a title suit. (Arya Samaj Shri Karanpur Vs Prithvi Raj & Anr.) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 608 (Rajasthan)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.6 - Suit u/s 6 - Court is required to hold summary proceedings in relation to lawful possession and dispossession in an unlawful manner - When both the factors are established then a decree of restoration of possession can be passed - No appeal or review is maintainable against such a decree - In case of dismissal of suit no appeal is maintainable though High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction may interfere, if a strong case is made out. (Dr.Surinder Singh Talab Vs Bua Dass (Died) through LRs) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 332 (P&H)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Ss.6, 22 - Agreement to sell - Vendor filing suit for possession - Failure of vendee to pay remaining consideration amount - In absence of counter claim no relief can be granted to vendee to pay remaining amount of consideration - As vendee had not performed his part of contract for long, merely depositing consideration by him in pursuance of such decree is not sufficient to dismiss suit of vendor - Keeping in view that vendee has installed saw will and had raised construction on suit land, vendor will adequately compensate him for taking back possession from him. (Smt.Sunder Bai & Ors. Vs Nonit Ram) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 173 (M.P.)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.12 - Specific performance of part of contract - Can be allowed on payment of proportionate consideration. (Balkar Singh Vs Mohabat Singh & Ors.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 475 (P&H)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.12(2) & (3) - It is only in cases where a party has categorically refused to accept part-performance in part i.e. he has unambiguously elected not to accept part-performance that, he will be precluded from subsequently turning around and electing to accept performance in part. (Ambikadevi Vs Easwari) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 230 (Kerala)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Ss.12(2) to (4) - Specific performance - Agreement to sell can be enforced against one of the co-owners who had jointly contracted to convey the property. (Krishnan Vs Krishnan) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 435 (Kerala) 

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.13(3)(b)(ii) - Part performance - If performance of agreement qua some part of the property becomes impossible, Court can grant specific performance of the remaining part of the property if it is a substantial part of it. (Kulwant Singh Vs Makhan Singh) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 513 (P&H) 

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.13(3)(b)(ii) - Part performance - Part of the contract not enforceable - Decree of specific performance can be passed for the remaining part if plaintiff relinquishes his claim to the performance of the remaining part of the contract and all his rights to have compensation either for deficiency or for the loss of damage sustained by him because of the default of the defendant. (Kulwant Singh Vs Makhan Singh) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 513 (P&H) 

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.14 - Reconveyance - Time is essence of contract - Plaintiff failing to pay consideration amount within stipulated period - Plaintiff not having sufficient funds at relevant time - Plaintiff not ready and willing - No plea that time for payment was extended by mutual consent - Suit for specific performance - Dismissed. (Mehdi Hussain Khan Vs Nusrat Hasan) AIR 2004 A.P. 123

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.14(1)(a) & 10 - Agreement to sell - Suit for specific performance - Ice factory - Machinery in the ice factory is always attached to earth - Once it is stated that machinery is installed on the land, it amounts that it is permanently appended to earth - Held, ice factory is immovable property. (Kulwant Singh Vs Makhan Singh) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 513 (P&H) 

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.16, Evidence Act, 1872, S.67 - Sale - Denial by vendor - Vendee proved execution of sale deed by clear and unambiguous evidence of attesting witnesses - At no point of time vendor challenged execution of registered sale deed by seeking declaration of same being void - Neither vendor filed any cross case for cancellation of sale deed nor did he resort to any mode of proving his signature - Finding of lower appellate Court against vendor - Not perverse or based on surmises and conjectures to warrant interference in second appeal. (Paokhothang Haokip Vs Dozakhup Paite) AIR 2003 Gauhati 44

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.16(c) - Agreement to sell - Readiness and willingness - Pronote in favour of plaintiff executed by defendant - Plaintiff seeks to adjust amount of pronote towards payment of sale consideration - Does not tantamount to readiness and willingness. (Malkiat Singh & Anr. Vs Om Parkash & Anr.) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 15 (P&H)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.16(c) - Agreement to sell - Suit for specific performance - Ready and willing - Pleading that plaintiff was ôever ready and willing to execute the sale-deed in his favour after making a payment of Rs.200/-ö - Amounts to compliance of mandatory provision of S.16(c) Specific Relief Act. (Rambhau Jagoji Garde Vs Shantabai) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 275 (Bombay)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.16(c) - Ready and willing - Vendee agreeing to discharge mortgage debt of vendor payable to Bank - Vendee claiming to have made two payments to vendor - Vendor required due to inordinate delay in discharge of debt payable to Bank, to sell certain other property - Proves that vendee was not ready and willing to discharge debt payable by vendor to Bank - He making payment of balance eventually - Does not cure defect that vendee was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract within stipulated time - Not entitled to relief of specific performance. (Valliamal Vs Angammal) AIR 2002 Madras 292

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.16(c) - Suit for reconveyance of property filed on basis of right of pre-emption - By amendment of plaint suit converted to be one for specific performance - Readiness and willingness averred in the amended plaint must be proved to be continuous i.e. right from date of contract upto date of hearing of suit - Where consideration offered in suit initially filed was for less than what was offered on contract to sell, readiness and willingness in terms of contract cannot be said to be continuous - Amendment of plaint wherein plea of readiness and willingness is introduced relates back to date of institution of suit but in no way proves that such readiness and willingness was continuous from date of contract - Held, plaintiff is not entitled to relief of specific performance. (H.Muthunanjaiah Vs C.G.Indiramma (Deceased) by L.Rs & Ors.) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 448 (Karnataka)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.19(b), Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Ss.41, 52 - Subsequent purchaser - Subsequent purchasers son of the mortgagee in possession and residents of same village - Inhabitants of a small village is presumed to have knowledge of an agreement to sell executed in favour of one party of the same village - Held, that subsequent vendees are not bona fide purchasers. (Deep Singh & Ors. Vs Amrik Singh & Anr.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 560 (P&H)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.19(b) - Agreement to sell - Subsequent bonafide purchaser - Earlier agreement to sell and sale deed of subsequent purchaser scribed by the same deed writer - This fact establishes that subsequent vendee was having knowledge of earlier agreement to sell. (Gurbachan Singh & Anr. Vs Gurmit Singh) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 597 (P&H) 

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.19(b) - Agreement to sell - Subsequent purchaser without notice of earlier agreement - Subsequent purchaser was having knowledge of earlier agreement to sell - Subsequent sale deed and earlier agreement to sell scribed by the same deed writer as such this fact also establishes that subsequent vendee was having knowledge of earlier agreement - Subsequent vendee also did not make any enquiries from the village of the vendor where the disputed land is situated - Held, subsequent vendee is not bonafide purchaser. (Gurbachan Singh & Anr. Vs Gurmit Singh) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 597 (P&H) 

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.19(b) - Bona fide purchaser - When subsequent sale deed was executed full amount was not paid - Execution of pronote cannot be said to be full payment - Protection u/s 19(b) is not available. (Kothurthi Krishna Bhaskar Rao Vs Nadiminti Suryanarayan Murthy) AIR 2004 A.P. 110

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.19(b) - Suit for specific performance - Conveyance executed by vendor in favour of defendant No.2 - Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance alleging sale in favour of defendant No.2 as sham and bogus and that he was always ready and willing to comply with his obligations under the suit agreement - High Court decreeing plaintiff's suit holding that sale in favour of defendant No.2 was concocted and was made to defeat claim of plaintiff - Sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 was a nominal sale - Signatures of defendant No.1 on agreement to sell property to plaintiff differed from that on sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.2 - Defendant No.2 had notice of agreement in favour of plaintiff when she entered into the conveyance - Appeal dismissed. (Sargunam (D) by Lr. Vs Chidambaram & Anr.) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 655 (S.C.) : 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 141 (S.C.)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.20 Explanation I - Mere fact that the contract is onerous to the defendant or improvident in its nature does not constitution an unfair advantage within the meaning of S.20(2). (Sargunam (D) by Lr. Vs Chidambaram & Anr.) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 07 (S.C.) : 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 141 (S.C.)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.20 - Specific performance - After passing of decree for specific performance, plaintiff cannot say that he does not want specific performance on ground of defective title. (Abdul Hameed Vs Mohammed Nizzar) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 772 (Kerala)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.20 - To get discretionary relief of specific performance plaintiff must approach Court within a reasonable time. (Manjunath Anandappa Urf.Shivappa Hanasi Vs Tammanasa & Ors.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 520 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 552 (S.C.)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.21(5) - Compensation in addition to or in substitution of specific performance - Cannot be granted in the absence of prayer to that  effect  either  in the plaint or amending the same at any later stage of the proceedings. (Shamsu Suhara Beevi Vs G.Alex & Anr.) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 555 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 262 (S.C.)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.22, Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.101 to 104 - Agreement to sell - Suit for refund of earnest money on failure to execute sale deed as agreed - Trial Court decreed suit - Decree reversed by first Appellate Court on basis of oral evidence that vendor had neither executed agreement nor received earnest money - Vendor had not denied his signature on agreement to sell evidencing receipt of earnest money - Heavy burden lies on vendor to prove his assertion to the contrary - Failure to discharge burden of proof cast on vendor - Decree passed by trial Court merits to be restored. (Sangappa Veerappa Katarki Vs Bhimappa Yamanappa Chabbi) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 347 (Karnataka)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.27 - Agreement to sell - Suit for declaration for rescission of contract as defendant did not turn up on stipulated time - Suit is maintainable since plaintiff has right to rescind agreement on failure of defendant to fulfil his part of agreement. (Mahender Singh Vs Piara Singh) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 14 (Rajasthan)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.27 - Rescission of contract - Suit for declaration - In such a suit relief of possession can be granted as, such a relief is a consequential relief. (Mahender Singh Vs Piara Singh) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 14 (Rajasthan)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.28 - Agreement to sell - Suit for specific performance - Plaintiff directed to deposit amount with specified period and on failure to deposit his suit would be dismissed - Court can extent time for depositing amount. (Smt.Vatsala Shankar Bansole Vs Sambhaji) AIR 2003 Bombay 57

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Ss.28 - Rescission of contract - Agreement to purchase two rolling machines - Part of consideration amount paid - Suit for refund on the ground that defendant had changed the machines - Defendant all along has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract - Defendant has not either expressly or by necessary implication accepted repudiation on part of plaintiff - Order decreeing suit for refund in favour of plaintiff is not proper. (Grandhi Subramanyam Vs Vissamsetti) AIR 2002 A.P. 71

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Ss.31 & 38, Limitation Act, 1963, Arts.58, 58 - Sale deed - Challenged being null and void - Suit is to be filed within 3 years from date of accrual of cause of action - Suit filed after lapse of 13 years from date of execution of sale deed - Suit is barred by limitation. (Smt.Dayawati & Ors. Vs Madan Lal Varma & Ors.) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 392 (Allahabad)  

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Ss.31 & 38 - Sale deed - In respect of ancestral property - Suit by sons for declaration that sale deed is null and void - Nothing to show what was the age of son at the time when sale deed was executed so as to show whether sons had birth right to ancestral property - No documentary evidence produced regarding their age and date of birth - Held, it cannot be accepted that they acquired birth right in house in dispute - Cannot challenge sale deed as void for want of competency of transferor. (Smt.Dayawati & Ors. Vs Madan Lal Varma & Ors.) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 392 (Allahabad)  

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34 - Cancellation of lease and licence - Suit for declaration that cancellation is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to terms and conditions of lease and suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant from enforcing that order - During pendency of suit defendant granted fresh lease to third party for 20 years from date of lease or till disposal of suit whichever is earlier - - Held, third party subjected himself to conditional lease, is not entitled to continue in possession even after disposal of suit and during pendency of appeal - Redelivery of possession ordered. (Shaik Munni Vs M/s Jagan Mohan Salt Industries) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 189 (A.P.) 

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34 - Declaration of title - Defendant claiming title to suit property on basis of sale deed executed by father of plaintiff - Plaintiff denied execution of sale deed by his father and that his father died prior to execution of sale deed - Onus to prove sale deed lies on defendant - Placing onus to prove on plaintiff not proper - Order of trial Court decreeing suit, proper. (Smt.Kumari Devi Vs Noor Mohammad Mian) AIR 2002 Patna 132

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34 - Dismissal from service - Suit for declaration of reinstatement in service - Some aid provided to school by Government - Held, it is a private institution and against such institution, suit for declaration and reinstatement in service is not maintainable - If dismissal/termination is illegal, then only a suit for damages can be filed. (Som Parkash Bansal Vs Managing Committee, Hindu Higher Secondary School, Kaithal) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 304 (P&H) 

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34 - Suit for declaration - Finding of lower Appellate Court that vendor of plaintiff had valid title and possession over suit land and after him plaintiff has acquired perfect title and possession - Suit cannot be held to be barred u/s 34 as consequential relief is not at all necessary in facts of the case. (Chhabi Dushadh Vs Bhuneshwar Pandey) AIR 2004 Jharkhand 92

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34 - Suit for declaration - Maintainability - Once decree for possession is passed against the occupants who are not proved to be tenants of appellants then the only cloud on the title is sale certificate which is sought to be removed by virtue of suit for declaration - Held, suit is maintainable.   (Gulzar Singh Vs Sulakhan Singh & Ors.) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 340 (P&H)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34 - Suit for declaration - Rank trespasser in the process of committing a trespass and was allegedly raising unauthorised construction neither owned nor legally possessed by him - Relief of specific performance is not a further relief to which the plaintiff is entitled or which he could have sought for against the defendant - Suit for declaration is maintainable. (Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs Anil Panjwani) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 595 (S.C.)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34 - Suit for declaration against Bank that amount shown as withdrawn from his account is not withdrawn by him and that Bank was negligent in allowing unauthorised withdrawal on withdrawal slip bearing forged signatures - Simplicitor suit for declaration is maintainable without seeking further relief of payment of amount of disputed withdrawal because if amount is held to be in his account he can withdraw same at any time. (Veerabhadrappa Vs The Manager, State Bank of Mysore ) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 67 (Karnataka)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34 - Suit for declaration of title, right and interest in suit property and recovery of possession - Coparcenary property - Plaintiff purchased property under valid sale deed from its owner who had major share in property - Defendant dispossessed plaintiff claiming to have inherited share in coparcenary property from share of their mother - Defendant having only 1/10th share  in entire property whereas owner from whom plaintiff purchased had 4/5th share - Action of defendant in dispossessing plaintiff from entire suit plot was contrary to law - Plaintiff entitled to declaration and possession. ((Smt.Hira Mani Devi Vs Bansi Ram) AIR 2004 Jharkhand 77

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Ss.34, 37, 38  & 41 - Transfer of employee - Employee failing to comply with transfer order - Charge sheet issued - Suit for declaration that transfer order is illegal, void and injunction to restrain defendant from holding any inquiry - No written contract of service between parties and no pleading that transfer order is in violation of any term of employment - Prayer in suit would amount to imposing an employee on employer which is not permissible in law - Plaint rightly rejected. (M/s.Pearlite Liners Pvt. Ltd. Vs Manorama Sirsi) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 32 (S.C.) :2004(2) Civil Court Cases 44 (S.C.)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Ss.34, 38 - Joint Family Property - Alienation by Manager - Suit subsequently filed against manager by his wife, not only on her behalf but also on behalf of minor son and daughters claiming share in and partition of joint family property - Allegation that sale by Manager was not in interest of joint family estate and was unauthorised - Allegation not proved - Held, suit was collusive, object being to set aside sale deed - Proper remedy is not partition suit but declaration and injunction to restrain manager from alienation property without consent and concurrence of other members of joint family. (Smt.Gourawwa Vs Basappa) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 328 (Karnataka)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Ss.34 & 38 and Evidence Act, 1872, S.3 - Suit for declaration of title and injunction - Claim made on basis of sale deed in the year 1963 and continuous possession - Claim denied by Corporation on ground that vendor had lost his title consequent upon acquisition of land for converting it into civil amenity site and that sale deed consequently is void ab initio - Mere denial of suit claim without producing records evidencing acquisition of land for civil amenity does not disprove claim of party suing - In absence of proof of acquisition of land, suit of plaintiff is liable to be decreed.  (Chinnappa Vs Corporation of the City of Bangalore) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 382 (Karnataka)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Ss.34 & 38 - Suit for injunction - Counter claim by way of declaration to protect the prescriptive easementary right of way in defence of the suit is unnecessary. (Sreenivasan  Vs Thilakan) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 296 (Kerala) 

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.36 - Coparcener - Injunction - Coparcener cannot seek injunction against other coparceners restraining them from enjoying joint family properties. (M.Krishna Rao Vs M.L.Narasikha Rao) AIR 2003 A.P. 498

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.36 - Injunction - Coparceners - A coparcener cannot seek an injunction against other coparceners restraining them from enjoying the joint family properties. (M.Krishna Rao & Anr. Vs M.L.Narasikha Rao & Ors.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 265 (A.P.)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.37 - Suit for injunction - Attachment made u/s 146(1) Cr.P.C. - It is not necessary to seek relief of possession - A mere adjudication of rights would suffice inasmuch as the attached property is held custodia legis by the Magistrate for and on behalf of the party who would be successful from the  competent court by establishing his right to possession over the property. (Shanti Kumar Panda Vs Shakuntala Devi) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 169 (S.C.) : 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 344 (S.C.)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Ss.37, 38, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39.Rr.1,2 - Injunction - An equitable relief, cannot be granted to a person who does not come to Court with clean hands and who is guilty of suppression of facts. (Jonnala Sura Reddy & Anr. Vs Tityyagura Srinivasa Reddy & Ors.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 417 (A.P.)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Ss.37, 38, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.91(1) - Injunction - Construction of building in violation of Municipal Regulations - Single individual can file a suit for injunction to restrain the wrongdoer from proceeding such an illegal act - Suit does not come under S.91(1) CPC. (Mariamma Vs Thomas) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 442 (Kerala)  

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Ss.37, 38 - Co-sharer - Exclusive possession - Plaintiff living in house alongwith his mother -  Merely because mother is living with the plaintiff it cannot be said that plaintiff is not in exclusive possession of the house - Held, plaintiff is entitled to the injunction restraining defendants from interfering in his possession over the suit property. (Ajit Singh Vs Gurbax Singh & Ors.) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 574 (P&H)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Ss.37, 38 - Demolition of room constructed by one joint owner inspite of status quo order - Concurrent finding of fact of Courts below that plaintiff is joint owner of the suit land - Assertion of defendant that he is in exclusive possession of suit land not accepted by Courts below - Conclusion of Courts below supported by mutation sanctioned in favour of plaintiff and various jamabandies and khasra girdwaries - Order of first appellate Court directing defendant to demolish the room built by them inspite of status quo order, upheld. (Ram Pal Vs Zile Singh) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 248 (P&H) 

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Ss.37, 38 - Injunction - Is a discretionary relief which will not be granted when it will operate oppressively or inequitably or contrary to the rule of justice - Perpetual injunction can be granted to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favour of the plaintiff whether expressly or by implication or when such an obligation arises from a contract - Injunction can also be issued when defendant invades or threatens to invade plaintiff's right to or enjoyment of property when the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief. (Mange Ram Gupta Vs New Delhi Municipal Committee) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 405 (Delhi) 

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Ss.37, 38 - Injunction - Passage/road berm - Long user - Adverse possession - Plaintiff having no right, title or interest in the suit property - Municipal Committee also failing to prove its ownership - User by plaintiff for 20 to 25 years - Long user will not clothe the plaintiff with any legal right either to own or possess the suit land - Disputed land not bounded by any boundary wall and that public would pass over this land when the vehicles of plaintiff were not parked and at night time when the piece of land was free from any vehicles - This cannot amount to hostile, uninterrupted and continuous possession of the plaintiff for a period of more than 30 yeas over the disputed land - Plaintiff not entitled to injunction. (Mange Ram Gupta Vs New Delhi Municipal Committee) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 405 (Delhi) 

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Ss.37, 38 - Injunction - Plea of fraud - When once the plea of fraud is rejected, no injunction can be granted. (Vontimitta Krishnaiah Chetty (died) by Lrs. & Ors. Vs C.Subbarayappa (dies) by Lrs.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 498 (A.P.)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Ss.37, 38 - Suit for permanent injunction filed U.O.1.R.8 restraining defendants and other persons being co-sharers of Shamlat Patti Udha from dispossessing from the land - Plaintiff being in possession - Injunction rightly granted. (Thandi Vs Kishori) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 590 (P&H) 

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Ss.37, 38 - Suit for permanent injunction - Injunction cannot be granted against the true owner at the instance of a third party - In fact the suit of such a nature is not maintainable. (Bachan Singh Vs Sadhu Singh & Ors.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 631 (P&H)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Ss.37, 38 - Suit for permanent injunction - Person in long continuous possession can protect his possession by seeking injunction against any person other than the true owner - Even the true owner can get back possession only by resorting to due process of law. (Surta Ram & Ors. Vs Fakkar & Ors.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 85 (P&H)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Ss.37, 38 - Suit for permanent injunction - Plaintiff proved to be owner - Defendant proved to be in possession on the date of filing of suit - Plaintiff is not entitled to the decree of permanent injunction - Plaintiff is also not entitled to the decree of possession as plaintiff has neither pleaded nor proved that he is dispossessed during the pendency of suit. (Sant Lal Vs Johri Lal) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 210 (P&H)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Ss.37, 38 - Unauthorised occupant - Has to be thrown out in due course of law. (Harji Vs Smadh Baba Vijay Ram Chela Mangal Dass) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 648 (P&H) 

Specific Relief Act, 1963, Ss.37 to 39 - Public road - Encroachment - Plaintiff need not to show any special damage to him in order to obtain relief from Court for restraining defendant from making construction by way of encroachment and also for mandatory injunction to remove the existing construction which was an encroachment. (Jiwanlal  Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 295 (Bombay)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.38 - Injunction - Cannot be issued in favour of trespasser against true owner. (Kishan Lal Vs Radhey Shyam) AIR 2002 Allahabad 271

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.38 - Mandatory injunction - Joint possession - Suit filed by one of parties claiming exclusive right over property - Title of property in dispute - Court has to determine question of title giving opportunity to both parties - Plaintiff would not entitled to relief merely on basis of possession. (Venkataswamy Vs Narayana A. & Ors.) AIR 2002 Karnataka 326

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.38 - Permanent injunction - Restraining interference with possession of trees - Report of Commissioner that all trees in respect there is claim of plaintiff do not situate in Survey Number as alleged by plaintiff - Under such circumstances, plaintiff should have sought for a declaration specifically stating which trees belonged to him - Plaintiff not entitled to relief of permanent injunction. (Ramu Servai Vs Mandhachi) AIR 2004 Madras 388

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.38 - Prohibitory injunction - Construction in violation of building bye-laws - In such a suit Corporation is a necessary and proper party - Aggrieved party can report to Corporation about violation of building bye-laws and if Corporation does not respond legally, party can invoke jurisdiction of Civil Court for appropriate relief against the violator and the Corporation as well - Without considering the stand of Corporation, it is not proper for Civil Court to adjudicate the matter - Suit dismissed as Corporation not impleaded as a party. (Rohini Bai Vs B.L.Rajashri & Ors.) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 615 (Karnataka)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.38 - Suit for injunction - Identification of property - Continuous possession of defendant from the year 1964 established - Sale deed executed by General Power of Attorney of plaintiff found to be valid - Revocation of general power of attorney as alleged by plaintiff never acted upon - Plaintiff not entitled to injunction against defendant  - There cannot be an injunction against real owner. (S.V.Narasaiah Vs P.Dharma Reddy) AIR 2002 A.P. 95

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.38 - Suit for permanent injunction - Ownership and possession claimed by virtue of sale deed - Sale deed not proved - Vendor admitted in evidence as to transfer of ownership and possession to the vendee - Plaintiff entitled to decree on basis of possessory title against defendant. (Santoo & Ors. Vs Jagannath & Ors.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 04 (Allahabad)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.38 - Unauthorised construction - To restrain landlord from raising unauthorised construction on suit premises - Claim of plaintiff that he is in occupation of portion of ground floor of suit premises as sub-tenant and defendant was carrying out unauthorised construction damaging his portion - Plaintiff had established is possession on portion of ground floor of suit premises - In the suit it is not an issue as to in which capacity he is in possession - Plaintiff is entitled to grant of injunction restraining defendant from carrying out unauthorised construction, without permission of corporation. (S.Jamiat Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi) AIR 2004 Delhi 346

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.39 - Co-sharer - Construction raised by one co-sharer on joint land on an area in his exclusive possession - Held, once a co-sharer is in exclusive possession he has right to enjoy the possession thereof subject to the right of other co-sharers in partition proceedings - There cannot be any decree for mandatory injunction directing that co-sharer to remove the construction raised on the joint land. (Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs Joginder Kaur alias Jogindero & Ors.) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 174 (P&H)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.39 - Common passage - Obstruction - Plaintiff having obtained a decree of mandatory injunction cannot once again approach the Court seeking partition of the common passage which has been kept joint by a registered partition deed. (Raghunath Bardhan Vs Biswanath Bardhan) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 178 (Orissa) 

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.39 - Mandatory injunction - Grant of relief suo motu - To undo certain acts done by defendant in violation of injunction order - Relief of mandatory injunction can be granted in absence of a specific plea and relief claimed for that. (Ronda Narapa Reddy & Ors. Vs Ronda Suryanarayana Reddy) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 560 (A.P.)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.41 - Contract of personal service - Cannot be specifically enforced  - Exceptions to this rule are : where a public servant is sought to be removed from service in contravention of the provision of Article 311 of the Constitution of India; (ii) where a worker is sought to be reinstated on being dismissed under the Industrial Law; and (iii) where a statutory body acts in breach of violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute. (M/s.Pearlite Liners Pvt. Ltd. Vs Manorama Sirsi) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 32 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 44 (S.C.)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.41 - Injunction - Restraining defendant from interfering in possession - Dispute between chief tenant and sub-tenant - Documentary evidence showing that defendant was chief agent and plaintiff were sub-tenants - No evidence that defendant interfered in possession of plaintiff - Mere demand of rent by defendant does not amount to interference in possession of sub-tenants - Order refusing grant of injunction - Proper. (A.B.Hassan Vs Sundari)  AIR 2002 Madras 342

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.41 - Suit for injunction - Availability of equally efficacious remedy of possession - Simplicitor suit for injunction does not lie - However in a case where because of jural or fiduciary relationship between parties possession in eye of law is deemed to be that of plaintiff, then requirement of first obtaining decree of possession will not apply. (Geetanjali Nursing Home (P) Ltd. Vs Dr.Dileep Makhija and others) AIR 2004 Delhi 53

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.41(4) - Suit for injunction - Tenant alleged to be creating nuisance by not following rules for opening and closing time of shop - Suit dismissed on ground of alternative remedy available - Court cannot everyday monitor and see that tenant observes prescribed opening and closing hours - Therefore, directions given to Inspector, Shop and Establishment to observe same regularly. (Kuldeep Chander Vs Chief Inspector of Shops and others)  AIR 2004 Delhi 130

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.41(b) - Debts Recovery Tribunal - Not a Court subordinate to High Court - High Court cannot stay further proceedings pending before Tribunal. (State Bank of India Vs Madhumita Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. ) AIR 2003 Calcutta 7

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.41(g) - Construction of house by appellant adjacent to that of respondent - Respondent brother of appellant actively participated in construction and allowed to take support of wall and never objected to it - Two years later respondent claimed either to demolish or remove construction - Trial Court refused to order demolition - Injunction against future construction granted - Held, order is proper - In circumstances order by appellate Court for demolition by placing reliance on S.15 Easements Act which provides for acquisition of Easement by prescription - Not proper, since easement was never claimed by appellant. (Dhaniya Bai Vs Jiwan) AIR 2003 M.P. 71

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.42 - Suit for declaration that withdrawal slips are forged and that Bank has acted negligently in making payment - Suit for bare declaration is maintainable as Bank is obliged to reimburse and as such account of depositor remains unaffected by payment of made. (Veerabhadrappa Vs Manager, State Bank of Mysore) AIR 2004 Karnataka 359

Print Page