RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF PROPERTY

SPECIAL RELIEF ACT, 1963

SUBMITTED BY- ASHANSH ROSHAN (58/20F)

( B.A L.L.B ) KANWAR MAAN (59/20F)
SEM-2 MUSKAN (60/20F)
TANISHA BANSAL (61/20F)
MELISHA DUA (62/20F)
SAANCH (63/20F)

SUBMITTED TO- MRS. RAJNI VERMA

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LAWS

P.U. REGIONAL CENTRE , LUDHIANA
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to

Prof. Rajni Verma who gave us the golden opportunity to
work on the topic ‘RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF
PROPERTY’ (SECTION: 5-8) and for their able guidance
and support in completing my assignment. Her patience,
motivation, enthusiasm and immense knowledge have
helped us immensely during our research.

REGARDS
Ashansh Roshan
Kanwar Maan
Muskan
Tanisha Bansal
Melisha Dua
Saanch
Introduction
Introduction to the Specific Relief Act is a must before
jumping into a range of reliefs as are being provided
under the law. Having a legacy of distinction, earlier
through the 1877 Act and then through the 1963 Act,
the legislature endeavoured to grant the equitable
jurisdiction and widen the justice imparting powers of
the courts

The institution of justice is being approached by an

aggrieved litigant for the purposes of getting relief. In the
contractual relationship, where one person detracts from
the promise earlier made, the other person deserves a
remedy from the law. This is what the Specific Relief Act
tends to achieve. From this codified legislation, flow
some of the most common remedies that today in a court
of law are found to be given in a variety of such cases of
breaches. Examples include that of the specific
performance of contracts, recovery of possession of
property etc.

This shows how this act covers the remedial aspects of

the law and comes into picture only when a legal right is
violated, thus a branch of the procedural law.

In the coming article, the introductory aspects of this

legislation would be examined. With forty-four appended
sections along with the two major concepts of specific
relief and preventive relief imbedded in the statute, we
will have a cursory look across the legal provisions.

Long back the Calcutta High Court clarified on the

meaning of this oft-repeated phrase of specific relief,
whereby it was categorically held that it is meant as a
form of judicial redress which hence belongs to the law of
procedure.
In a body of written law, it is arranged according to the
natural affinities of its subject matter and it is supposed
to find its place as a distinct part of the Code of Civil
Procedure Code or other division. If the historical
accidents are not considered in the interpretation of the
law, there would be no reason left for a separate
procedural law other than the Civil Procedure Code and
the Transfer of Property Act.

This procedural law can also be termed to providing a

legal mechanism for the parties to avail the benefit of
equitable reliefs

History
Before coming to how the legislation in India took its
final shape in 1963, it is important to understand its
roots in the common law and equity. Pollock and Mulla
in their commentarythrow light on this aspect. It is
explained how from the default King’s justice the course
moved on to the Chancellor fulfilling the king’s role in
giving adequate remedies to the parties when the money
compensation would fall inadequate.

COMMON LAW VS EQUITY

On one hand, the common law could only provide for
payment for the breaches of the contract, the equity
courts stepped in to restrain and coerce the faulting
party to actually perform what he or she had earlier
promised to perform.

The confusion was that the law courts could not give
specific relief due to their well defined ordinary civil
jurisdiction whereas the equity courts could not order for
damages given their equitable jurisdiction.
1877 Act
In India, during the colonial times, the Specific Relief
Act, 1877 was being enacted. The New York Civil Code,
1862 was taken as the model to be adapted. The main
provisions do follow the equity principles which are so
evolved by the Courts of England.

This legislation borrowed from both the weaknesses as

well as the strengths from the Courts of Equity. One of
the biggest examples includes the remedy of specific
performance whereby the confusion of deficient remedy
giving power for both common law and equity courts was
resolved. By this remedy, now even the law courts could
grant under the law a relief which was equitable in
nature

This act was amended a number of times. After its

enactment, Act 4 of 1882 amended it, later a series of
amendments followed, as, Acts 12 of 1891, 9 of 1899, 21
of 1929, 10 of 1940 and 3 of 1951. Adaptation Orders
came up to adapt the said legislation, namely, A.O. 1937,
A.O. 1948 and A.O. 1950.

1963 Act

It was the strenuous efforts made by the Law

Commission of India headed by the eminent jurist, M.C.
Setalvad, which led to the drafting of Report on the
Specific Relief Act, 1877. It recommended a drastic
change in the legislation to be made so as to put to rest
the defects in the drafting of the act. The report was
submitted in July 1958.

The biggest effect of this report was that Sh. A.K. Sen,
the then Law Minister acted upon the suggestions and
led the enactment of the Act in 1963. The best thing is
that the recommendation to remove all the illustrations
was being acted upon given the fact that the illustrations
in the old act had failed to clarify the provisions of that
Act.

SECTION-5 :- Recovery of specific

immovable property

Section 5 of the specific relief act deals with the recovery

of specific immovable property.

“A person entitled to the possession of specific

immovable property may recover it in the manner
provided by the code of civil procedure,1908

The section in simple words provide that any person who

is lawful owner of immovable property can get the
possession of such property by due course of law. It
means that when a person is entitled to the possession
of specific immovable property he can recover the same
by filling the suit per provisions of C.P.C. He may file
suit for ejectment on the strength of his title and can get
a decree for ejectment on the basis of title within 12
years of the date of possession.Section 5 of the act
declares that in a suit for the recovery of immovable
property by person ‘entitled to ’provisions order XXI,
Rules 35 and 36 of CPC would apply. There are three
types of actions which can be brought in law for the
recovery of specific immovable property.

(1) a suit based on ownership;

(2) a suit based on possessory title; and

(3) a suit based merely on the previous possession of the
plaintiff, where he has been dispossessed without his
consent , otherwise than in due law course of law.
The last remedy is provided in section 6 of the act.The
suits of the first two types can filled under the provisions
of the civil procedure code.

The word ‘entitled to possession ’means having a legal

right to title to possession on the basis of ownership of
which the claimant has been dispossessed.

[1] Plaintiff must show that he had possession before the

alleged trespasser got possession before the alleged
trespasser got possession.

In case law ‘ISMAIL ARIFF v. MOHAMMAD GHOUSE

the privy council held, the possession of the plaintiff was
sufficient evidence as a title of owner against the
defendant by section 6 of specific relief act, if the plaintiff
had been possessed otherwise than in due course of law.
There may be title by contract, inheritance, and
prescription or even possession and the last will prevail
where no preferable title is shown.

Section 6 – Suit by person dispossessed of

immovable property

The law recognises the sanctity of possession of

immovable property and expects that no one having
possession will be dispossessed without his consent and
otherwise than in due course if a person has been
dispossessed of immovable property without his consent
and otherwise than in due course of law, he will be
entitled to recover the possession.
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 makes the
following provision in this regard:

1. If any person is dispossessed without his consent of

immovable property otherwise than in due course of
law, then 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.
3. After the expiry of six months from the date of
dispossession; or
4. Against the government.
5. 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.
6. Nothing in this section shall bar any person from
suing to establish his title to such property and to
recover possession thereof.
• Under Section 6 when a person is dispossessed without
his consent of immovable property without following the
due course of law then either he or any person claiming
through him, by suit, recover possession by filing a suit.

Essential of Section 6
1. Any person must be dispossessed of immovable
property without his consent;
2. He must be dispossessed otherwise than in due
course of law;
• Where above essentials are fulfilled then either he or
any person claiming through him may file a suit to
recover the possession.
 1) Any person is dispossessed without his consent
of immovable property-
• First thing which the plaintiff has to prove is that he
has judicial possession of the Immovable Property
and defendant has taken possession of that
immovable property without his consent.
• Expression “any person claiming through him”
includes a landlord whose tenant has been
dispossessed by someone else. The expression would
bring within its fold the landlord as he continues in
legal possession over the tenanted property through
his tenant, Sadashiv Shyama Sawant v. Anita
Anant Sawant, (2010)
➢ Possession voluntarily transferred by the plaintiff, not
covered under Sec. 6
• It may be noted that Section 6 covers only that case
where the plaintiff is unlawfully dispossessed of
immovable property. However, where the plaintiff has
either given the consent to the defendant for taking
possession or the plaintiff has voluntarily given
possession to the defendant then Section 6 is not
applicable and he cannot file a suit under Section 6.
• In Sukhjeet Singh V. Sirajunnisa, the tenant handed
over possession of premises to the landlord for marriage
of his son. The landlord failed to hand over the
possession again to the tenant after his son's marriage.
It was held that even though the tenant may have been
deceived later on but since he handed over the
possession of his own volition, he could not claim the
possession again under Section 6, as the Section was not
attracted in this situation.
 2) He must be dispossessed otherwise than in due
course of law-
Another essential of Section 6 is that the plaintiff must
be dispossessed without following procedure under law.
Therefore, where the plaintiff is dispossessed without
following law he can file a suit under this section.
• In K. Verma V. Union of India it was held by the
Bombay High Court that the possession of
tenant even after the expiry of tenancy period is
juridical possession and hence the owner
cannot throw him out without following the
procedure of law.
• The purpose behind section 6 of the Act is to restrain a
person from using force and to dispossess a person
without his consent otherwise than in due course of law;
[East India Hotels Ltd. v. Syndicate Bank, 1992]
• Due course of law' implies that right of the person
affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which
pronounces judgment upon the question of life, liberty or
property in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard,
by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right
determination of the controversy by proof every material
fact which bears on the question of fact or liability be
conclusively proved or presumed against him [East India
Hotels Ltd. v. Syndicate Bank]
• Section 6 does not in any way contemplate an enquiry
into title; the court is required to confine itself to
evidence of possession and possession only. The result is
that even if the defendant has a better title than the
plaintiff, he cannot resist the plaintiff's suit for recovery
of possession if the plaintiff proves the allegation made
by him.
• In a suit under section 6 of the Act, the only question
that has to be determined by the Court is whether the
plaintiff was in possession of the disputed property and
whether he had been illegally dispossessed there from on
any date within six months prior to the filing of the suit;
[T.C. Limited v. Adarsh Co-operative Housing Society
Ltd., 2012]
• Section 6 postulates the existence in the plaintiff on the
date of eviction, at least possessory title. That means that
he should have juridical possession and he should not be
a mere trespasser squatting on the property. Juridical
possession, in one, is actual possession with an intention
of maintaining himself in possession [Neyveli Lignate
Corpn. Ltd. v Narauna lyer AIR 1965].
• It may be noted that juridical possession cannot per se
always be equated with 'lawful possession'. The
protection that the court affords is not of the possession,
which in the circumstances is 'litigious possession' and
cannot be equated with 'lawful possession', but a
protection against forcible dispossession.
• The basis of relief is a corollary of the principle that
even with the best of title there can be no forcible
dispossession [M/s Patil Exhibitors (Pvt.) Ltd. v
Bangalore City Corpn. AIR 1986]
• Section 6 frowns upon forcible dispossession without
recourse to law but does not at the same time declare
that the possession of the evicted person is a lawful
possession (M.C. Chockalingam v V. Manickavasagam
(1974)
• A landlord who was in possession through a tenant, on
the dispossession of his tenant becomes dispossessed
himself, and is, therefore entitled to seek his remedy
under Sec. 6 [Jadunath Singh v Bishunath Singh,
1950].
• When possession is taken by the State Government,
grievance cannot be made by the petitioner until it
has established its better title to the property and
therefore becomes entitled to possession
 • [C. Indra Kumar Pvt. Ltd, v State of Orissa AIR
1972 Ori 40.]
• Where the grant of possession was purely gratuitous,
the owner had the right to reclaim possession even
without the knowledge of the person in possession. The
party in possession in this case was using the garage
owned by the sister. The owner dispossessed him (Anima
Mallick v Ajoy Kumar Roy (2000)
• Under Sec. 6, all that the plaintiff has to prove is his
previous possession and dispossession by the defendant
within a period of six months from the date of suit. The
remedy provided by Sec. 6 is thus an
additional/supplementary one and does not preclude the
party dispossessed to assert his title in the ordinary
court of law, even though the suit is brought beyond six
months of his dispossession. A suit based on possession
alone is not incompetent after the expiry of 6 months and
a suit based on prior possession could be filed within 12
years, under Sec. 5, and title need not be proved unless
the defendant can prove one [Tirumala Tirupati
Devasthanams v K. M. Krishnaiah AIR 1998]
• If the plaintiff is in possession of the property in part-
performance of a contract for sale and the requirements
of Sec. 53-A, T. P. Act are satisfied, he may protect his
possession even against the true owner. Therefore, in
view of Sec. 53-A, T. P. Act, and, Sec. 6 of Specific Relief
Act, the person in possession may not have title to the
property yet if he has been inducted into possession by
the rightful owner and he is in peaceful and settled
possession of such property he is entitled in law to
protect the possession until dispossessed by due process
of law by a person having better title than what he has
(Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v Anil Panjwani AIR
2003)
Who can file a suit
• Under Section 6 of the Act, prior to the Amendment Act
2018, a person who was removed from actual possession
or a person claiming through him, could file a suit in
relation to such dispossession. However, the owner or its
agent or other appointee could not file a suit for recovery
of such property once the tenant or lessee etc. in
possession of the property was dispossessed. By the
Specific Relief (Amendment) Act 2018, a title holder of
immovable property or agent or appointee will have a
right to sue for recovery of possession of immovable
property as is available to a person who was deriving
possession though him, e.g. tenant, mortgagee etc.
Plaintiff must come with clean hands
• It has been held by the Supreme Court in Mahabir
Prasad Jain v. Ganga Singh that a person seeking
equitable relief under the Specific Relief Act, should come
to the court with clean hand. In this case the respondent
tenant, who was sued for possession instead of giving
evidence of his tenancy, instituted different proceedings
in different cases within a short time making
inconsistent allegations against the landlord. It was held
that he was abusing the process of the court and he did
not come to the court within clean hands. He was,
therefore, held not entitled to any equitable relief under
the Specific Relief
Act.

Limitation period for suit

• Significantly, the limitation period for filing a suit
under Section 6 is 6 months. However, where suit is
filed after 6 months generally no relief is granted
unless there is a reasonable ground to condone and
the court is satisfied by that ground.
No Suit against the Government
• It is important to mention that under Section 6(2) no
suit can be filed against the State or Government.
Therefore, when a person has been dispossessed of the
immovable property by the State he cannot bring an
action under the Specific Relief Act.

No appeal/review from order/decree passed under

Section 6
According to Section 6 (3) no appeal shall lay from any
order or decree passed in any suit instituted under
Section 6, nor shall any review of any such order or
decree be allowed.
• In Vanita M. Khansalkar v Pranga M Pai, the
question which had arisen before the Supreme Court was
whether bar to an appeal from an order passed under
Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was
applicable to a Letters Patent Appeal from an order
passed by a single judge to the Division Bench of the
High Court. It was held that bar to appeal and revision
under Section 6(3) does not apply to Letters Patent
Appeal.
No bar on a person from instituting a suit to establish his
title to immovable property and to recover the possession
of the same-
• Section 6 does not bar any person to bring a regular
suit founded upon his title in respect of the
immovable property and to recover possession
thereof even though a suit instituted under Section
6(1) of this Act has been decreed against him.
 Section 7- Recovery of specific movable
property
Section 7 deals with recovery of specific movable
property. The provision reads as under:
“7. Recovery of specific movable property – A person
entitled to the possession of specific movable property
may recover it in the manner provided by the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).
Explanation 1: A trustee may sue under this section for
possession of the movable property to the beneficial
interest he is entitled.

Explanation2: A temporary or special right to the present

possession is sufficient to support a suit under this
section.”

Essentials of Section 7 are as follows:-

✓ A person entitled to the possession of movable
property
✓ It must be specific movable property
If above conditions are fulfilled then he may recover it in
the manner provided by the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908
1. A person entitled to the possession of movable
property:-For filing a suit under this section, the
plaintiff must be entitled to the possession of
movable property. Significantly, entitled to
possession means a right must be a right to
immediate possession like a buyer who has paid
price of goods but has not received goods has right
to immediate possession. However, an important
questions who is entitled to possession of movable
property? Significantly, under this Section the
 following three persons are entitled to the possession
of movable property
(a) Owner of movable property- An owner of
movable property has bundle of lights which
includes right of possession. Therefore, where
owner is wrongfully dispossessed of his movable
property he cannot use force to recover possession
but must file a suit under this Section in the
manner provided by the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908.
Example: A, an owner of a car is wrongfully
dispossessed by B. A cannot use force to recover
possession of his care but can file a suit under Section
7.
(b) A person having a special or temporary right
to the present possession of movable property:
A person may not be an owner but may have
special or temporary right to the present
possession of movable property such as agent,
bailee and pledge. If such person is wrongfully
dispossessed of that movable then he cannot use
force to recover possession but must file a suit
under this Section in the manner provided by the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
• Where a person has a special or temporary
right with the consent of the owner: In case of
Bailment and Pledge, bailee and a pledge has a
special or temporary right to the present
possession of movable property with the consent
of the owner.
Example 1: A pledges certain jewels to B to secure a
loan. B is wrongfully dispossessed by C. B has
 special and temporary right to those jewels hence
can file a suit against C to recover possession.
Example 2: A gave his clothes to B, a drycleaner. C
wrongfully dispossess B of those clothes then B
cannot use force to recover possession but must
filed a suit under this Section in the manner
provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Here
B has a special and temporary right to the clothes.
• Special or temporary right to the present
possession of movable property without the
consent of the owner: A person has a special or
temporary right to have possession of goods
without the consent of the owner in involuntary
bailment.
• Involuntary Bailment: When bailment is not
with the consent of bailee but he gets possession
of the goods accidently, or by mistake it is known
as involuntary bailment.
Example: A forgot his coat in B’s shop. B kept in safe
custody to return it to B. B is involuntary bailee.
• Finder of goods is involuntary bailee- Another
example of involuntary bailment is finder of the
goods belonging to another person and taken them
in his possession then he is a bailee of those gods.
Here finder of the goods has special or temporary
right to the present possession of movable property
without the consent of the owner.
Example: A finds a diamond ring and takes it into his
custody. B wrongfully dispossesses A of that ring. A
having special right to that ring may sue B.
(c) Trustee- A trustee can also file a suit under this
section for the possession of movable property to
 the beneficial interest in which the person for
whom he is trustee is entitled.
Example: A (creator or settler of the trust) enters into
a trust contract with B (trustee), where B has been
given some moveable property to be used for the
benefit of C (beneficiary). The property of B but X
wrongfully disposed him. Here B, being trustee can sue
X for recovery.
2. It must be specific movable property:- Another
condition under Section 7 is that property must be
specific movable property. i.e., the plaintiff can claim
possession of specific movable property. Here
specific means determinable or ascertained goods
which can be separated, seized or identified from
rest of the goods.
Significantly this provision does not cover right to recover
'money' or crop because these are not specific goods.
However, 'specific rear coins, foreign currency and bags
of grain are covered under this Section.
Example 1- If A is wrongfully dispossessed of money he
cannot file suit under this Act but if he is dispossessed of
ancient coins not in use he can file a suit under this
section.
Example 2- A is wrongfully dispossessed of crop lying in
the ground he cannot file suit under this Act but if he is
dispossessed of bags of grain which were identifiable he
can file a suit under this Section.
• Recovery in a manner prescribed by the Code of
Civil Procedure- The possession of the property can be
recovered by filing a suit as prescribed by the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaint should contain
particulars in Form 32, Schedule I, Appendix A of the
C.P.C. The decree for delivery of possession of specific
movable property shall be passed in accordance with
Order XX, Rule 10 of the CPC. The decree for delivery of
specific movable property shall state the amount of
money to pay as an alternative, if the delivery cannot be
made.
• Suit can be filed against the owner- It is important
to mention that under Section 7, suit can be filed by a
person having a special and temporary right of
possession against the owner if he (owner) wrongfully
dispossesses him.
Example 1- A has given his clothes for dry-cleaning to B.
Subsequently A without making payment wrongfully
takes possession of clothes. B, bailee can file a suit
against A bailor to recover possession.
• No Suit if plaintiff has no right of immediate
possession- Under Section 7 suit can be filed by the
plaintiff if he is entitled to immediate possession.
Therefore, where he is owner but not entitled to
immediate possession then no suit shall lie under this
Section.
Example- A has pledged his jewellery to B.
Subsequently, B sells that jewellery to C before he is
entitled to do so. A without making payment, files a suit
against C to recover possession. He will not succeed and
his suit will be dismissed as he is not entitled to
possession.

SECTION 8

INTRODUCTION :
Section 8 of Specific Relief Act states that “if a person
has their control or possession on any movable property
which is in dispute, are held liable to transfer the said
property to the person who is having their legal right on
the same and the person who is claiming it should
entitle with immediate possession.”
DEFINITION :
As per the Specific Relief Act,1963 Sec. 8 is defined as,

“Liability of person in possession, not as owner, to deliver

to persons entitled to immediate possession.—Any person
having the possession or control of a particular article of
movable property, of which he is not the owner, may be
compelled specifically to deliver it to the person entitled to
its immediate possession, in any of the following cases:—
(a) when the thing claimed is held by the defendant as the
agent or trustee of the plaintiff;
(b) when compensation in money would not afford the
plaintiff adequate relief for the loss of the thing claimed;
(c) when it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the
actual damage caused by its loss;
(d) when the possession of the thing claimed has been
wrongfully transferred from the plaintiff.
Explanation.—Unless and until the contrary is proved, the
court shall, in respect of any article of movable property
claimed under clause (b) or clause (c) of this section,
presume—
(a) that compensation in money would not afford the
plaintiff adequate relief for the loss of the thing claimed,
or, as the case may be;
(b) that it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the
actual damage caused by its loss.”

SCOPE:
This Section provides a remedy to those persons who are
entitled to the possession of the movable property. If the
movable property of a person is disposed off illegally or
without following the procedure established by law and
such person to whom it is done is interested in claiming
damages and mesne profit together with the possession
of the property can be achieved by filing a suit under
Section 8 of Specific Relief Act.
A Plaintiff needs to prove his title in respect of the said
movable property which is in dispute. A plaintiff who is
not able to prove the title of the article is not liable for
decree u/s 8. Therefore it is necessary to prove the title
where the suit is based on the ownership of the article.

If a plaintiff successfully proved his title in respect of the

said article then he was always liable to get the decree in
his favour and no law can bar him from the grant of the
decree in his favour against the person who had no title
or had not proved his title over the article.

ESSENTIALS OF SECTION 8 :
▪ The defendant must have their possession or
control on the article in the suit.
▪ Such an article must be a movable property.

▪ The person who is claiming the possession should

be entitled to immediate possession.
▪ The defendant not be the owner of the article

▪ Any one of the above essentials must exist.

APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 8:
This Section is applicable only under the following
situations as follows;

1. When such person is held as an agent or trustee

of the property. In this situation burden of proof
is on plaintiff
2. When compensation is not a sufficient relief for
the loss or damage to the plaintiff. In this
situation burden of proof is on plaintiff
3. When it is not possible that any damage can be
ascertained. In this situation burden of proof is
on defendant.
 4. When possession of the property is unlawfully
transferred from the plaintiff. In this situation
burden of proof is on defendant.

CASE LAW:

Chandu Naik and others v. Sitaram B. Naik and

another 1997
In this case, it was held that when the dispute is between
two private parties related to the possession of premises,
the provisions of section 8 of the Act are not enforced and
the suit is tried and entertained under the Civil Court
which has their jurisdiction.

Gitarani Paul v. Dibyendra Kundu 1990

In this case, Supreme court held that, as long as the
plaintiff is able to show that he is the lawful owner of the
article in dispute and the title vest in him, he is the
registered owner, in this situation-specific details of the
disposition need not be proved as on the basis of the title
vest in him only when the suit is filed within the limitation
period.
 CONCLUSION
Having a legacy of distinction, earlier through the 1877
Act and then through the 1963 Act, the legislature
endeavoured to grant the equitable jurisdiction and
widen the justice imparting powers of the courts. The
institution of justice is being approached by an aggrieved
litigant for the purposes of getting relief. In the
contractual relationship, where one person detracts from
the promise earlier made, the other person deserves a
remedy from the law. This is what the Specific Relief Act
tends to achieve.Section 5 of the specific relief act
deals with the recovery of specific immovable
property.“A person entitled to the possession of specific
immovable property may recover it in the manner
provided by the code of civil procedure,1908. The section
in simple words provide that any person who is lawful
owner of immovable property can get the possession of
such property by due course of law. It means that when
a person is entitled to the possession of specific
immovable property he can recover the same by filling
the suit per provisions of C.P.C.
Section 6 – Suit by person dispossessed of immovable
property. The law recognises the sanctity of possession
of immovable property and expects that no one having
possession will be dispossessed without his consent and
otherwise than in due course if a person has been
dispossessed of immovable property without his consent
and otherwise than in due course of law, he will be
entitled to recover the possession. Under Section 6 when
a person is dispossessed without his consent of
immovable property without following the due course of
law then either he or any person claiming through him,
by suit, recover possession by filing a suit.
Section 7 - Recovery of specific movable property.
Section 7 deals with recovery of specific movable
property. The provision reads as under: “7. Recovery of
specific movable property – A personentitled to the
possession of specific movable property may recover it in
the manner provided by the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (5 of 1908). Explanation 1: A trustee may sue
under this section for possession of the movable property
to the beneficial interest he is entitled. Explanation2: A
temporary or special right to the present possession is
sufficient to support a suit under this section.”
Section 8 - of Specific Relief Act states that “if a
person has their control or possession on any movable
property which is in dispute, are held liable to transfer
the said property to the person who is having their legal
right on the same and the person who is claiming it
should entitle with immediate possession.”As per the
Specific Relief Act,1963 Sec. 8 is defined as,“Liability of
person in possession, not as owner, to deliver to persons
entitled to immediate possession.—Any person having
the possession or control of a particular article of
movable property, of which he is not the owner, may be
compelled specifically to deliver it to the person entitled
to its immediate possession, in any of the following
cases:— (a)When the thing claimed is held by the
defendant as the agent or trustee of the plaintiff;(b)When
compensation in money would not afford the plaintiff
adequate relief for the loss of the thing claimed;(c)When it
would be extremely difficult to ascertain the actual
damage caused by its loss;(d)When the possession of the
thing claimed has been wrongfully transferred from the
plaintiff.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1) CONTRACTS-I by R. K. Bangia 2020 EDITION

2) www.indianlegalsolution.com
3) www.lawyersclub.com
4) https://lawfaculty.in/latest-posts/