Chapter -1

RECOVERING POSSESSION OF PROPERTY

(Soc tlons 5 to 8)

This Chapt~r Is discussed undc,r tr1P. follc.tNin~ two t1,JarJ1 .

A. Reicovery of immovt1b/o property (Ss 5 & GJ
B. Recovery of movablo property (Ss 7 & 8)

A. RECOVERY OF IMMO VABL E PROPERTY (Ss. 5 & 6)

(Poss cssor y Reme dies)
S 5 1s a clarificat~on section , and lays down that 1f an1 pr::rS?l] is ent,tlid Eipla in the provj.
r
to the possession of immovable prop&rty, he can recover ,t in tr,e manne s l on1 r,f the
provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,,.(C. P. C). In such a suit. the Specific P.elief Act

plaintiff would be able to eject the defendant, 'iLhrJ can .. .:;:...;- -

orove that he had a
good title to such.QJ.Ql)MYJ.n. other words, this would be a sU1t for the eji:ctm ent
relatin g to reco*
11ery of poneuion
of specific jmmo-
of the defend!r't O.Q_ the basis of Iha plaintiff's t,tfe. However, he caflllQ/ ta~e the vable propert 1.
law in h11 own hands and obtain~he possession of the property b_y for~e , even B .U. Apr. 2001
Apr, 2011
thOugh he is legally entitled, to if/
Apr. 2013
In such cases, the court would require the plainti o prove s title, after Apr. 2014
Whieh a Judgment,would be given in-ms-favour. Needless o say, the whole Apr. 2011
process would take quite a few years. Ma, 2017
S. 6 then provides a speedy possessory remedy to any person who is
bcibly evicted from immovable property. Such a person - or any other person
Olacu H the la•
clairNng through him • can recover possession of such property, it@spective relating to poa1N
.I[the gueatlon~ title to such prope ~ if the following six conditions are fulfilled: aorr remed ies
(i) He should have been in possession of the immovable property. under the Specifi c
Reli9f AcL .
(it) Ht should have been thereafter dispossessed of such property. B.U. Nov. 2011
(HI) Such di1pot1H11ion should have been wltho,!;!! his conaent.
(Iv) Such dt1po11e11ion 1houfd have been otherwise than in due course
ofl1w. .
. . . (¥) TM di.lpoe....lon 1hould n_2.t have been byJ_/J! Government.
· . · fW) TIii IWit ahoUld be filed wlthllJ. m moatb• from the date of such
..., '. .. :dla,111111fon. . . . .
·. .... ....atwpurpoeecf 8. 8, e9!!!alon • tyfllcilnte,+w,aa
Ill f lll . ....,..... ff. . plaintiff pn:,wl bit heW in poell alon
•• ••.,•...,._,..,,_,or not 1W ii u. oww .._, , bit he
• --•t10•1..-wnolin._..,...,_,, .
~·--,..
.,.,..,,.,.Nli~ltC.•III\• ····".-.··_.·,. :,: . \: :
., ,·,~.-
'I • - "\• •• ,~ o.

.
'•

..•.,.,,.•,.,.,
,•, .• -'• -~ •

/<':<-'( .. ·•.'-'~,!~.:•·~·-:.- ~.);.,,, :: •> .. ~·->·-~>: . ••.·.

•
~

,.a·••
• • ~ . • • ::. • :. . . •4°;••:,

' , ;
-,

..
•• :

~-- ...· .
.,
.. ~ .. ·:

•..
., ,.\•~

t.•~i;~E·~~t.,,..
 ,.
t f d,~ po ss es sio n an d th
Th o f 3 c. o e ac tu af da te
, tt1t1 /,c t be . h R dd
d ., 5 0 o o f cou r~e . to
pro ve d ( M. Na ras 1m a e Y v K. V1not~
vr' t ori 11ave, A P) a
pojs~•!~-1 All-'I C e18 • . t ff m us t on l/ av er pre vio us
0""'· J,.~vv""·h O suit. the pla tntho1 ut his po ss es sio n a
n ,uc est.ion w, co ns en •
t a nd w ith ou t the du e prc ce• n~
I di!lpos s . 1 t. c•
~ub~
t.1Quen t ,ne nts an
d cla im s wo u Jd be irre ev an 1n su ch su its _,, T
ther ave r ~ If to th e c la im for f ·
IJW All O Id confine, M,e b Hu
ss
rec ov ery o po ss es sio n on i, · (Sh.-,,
ain, 19 89 Gu j. L. R . 27 5)
C urt wou Shrt Taf
~ d n 511 ,g/1 v . . ya .
· '1
0 of the co ur t un de r S . 6 1s qu .
MJ A, the Jurisdic~~~t,on of titl e . No ite lim ite d, it ca
r ca n it giv e an y _dir ec tio n as
rt not• d ate on the q on such land. reg~~~t
~rit e I 11\0 f 1 Th e on ly sc op e of its ord er wo
, ,-.c.ov•rt 0
on . adJU ~ of struc~uresf the im mo uld b '
1 va ble pro pe rty to the pla int iff.
•P"
'"ow •
''" ,rfY
_.,.. p,oP '"' · rem "0
°
restore posse 5s1on b the Ke ra la .
Hi ·
gh Co urt in Ab du l Ra him v
e to
I ved Y Nata1.
AS ob;~aj/ (AIR 1997 Ke r. 23 )..
L,1. NOV, 2001
· "ath
Muhamme . a su mm ary , ch ea p an d us efu

~
i•s. 6 provi~es l rem ed y to a pe
rt oth erw ise tha n in du e co urs
d of 1 . e rsTon
ossesse fon is to dis co ura ge pe ep e
ect of the sec 'ood mg .!,he law in their .he
hQYlever · . be ~lt pro vid es a su mm ary rem 0
hands_,__ h .
wit ho ut his content, een _wr .
ed y• wn
lO a
person
property, ,or
wto
reac~verv of posse_ssi1;:>n w ith
-.:.J- -
ou ~b
on gly
lis
_g
hin
ep
g
nv
tiH
ed of immovabl
e." - e
- - -- -- ~
Immovable pro pe rty
As seen above, S. 6 ap pli es on
ly to im mo va ble pro pe rty, The
•;mmovable property" is no t defined term
in the Specific" Relief Act. Howe
defined under the Transfer of Pr ver, it ,s
operty Ac t and the General Cla
under: uses Ac.t, as
•immovable property shall inc lud
e-
(a) land,
. (b) benefits to arise out of land, an
d
(c) things • attached to the (and,
or
- permanently fastened to anything
attached to the earth.
'· · There Is considerable difference
of opinion on the question as to wheth
._ . the term •immovable property" unde er
r this section would mean only actual
·,ahyaical objects or whether it would an<i
include other benefits arising out of d
· . ·: · ·· · · : .Th ~• is a conflict of op lao .
inion amongst courts on this point.
...i. .:· High Court ha held that immovable pro The Ca te~
.. ·:.: .:: · . • -• INV actual.and physical objects perty, as used under4this 4 se;i;u!llt
· '. ~ : .· _;· ll fw ~ the,Hagh Court of Bomb (Sital v. Dela~ney, 3 I. c ., rty would
ay has he ld that immovable P~n<JolPO
. :.. \~.- . . hdlude ~ ~ e a t rights like the S
right to fish. (Bu~dal ~ande to that of tt,e
,. : :, ;l f ~I A 221). The Madru High Court ha
• ··.·.··. 1_~1~-.l tt;'.JM .~ lln dh al he ld th at th ers taken a vieW Slfflll9arcrDP' and 1111
ig ht of.ferry, stand'"
••I •: ,~..\ •:)<. •:~:,
; I
•,•:~.-<: :,~ '••• :• .•. ,. ••' • , _; ' , ·• ,
·:
.,.,
•
 Tn,(_.. ~ vJ~ ,1 ~ l'~ ~ .t~il,v\,.
~ (> QJ.~ 1'l ~ °'IU~
&.itul
RECbVERING POSS SSIONOF PROPERTY 9

right to collect _rents are immovable property for the purpose of this section.
(Atpanna v. Knshnamma, A I. R. 1935 Mad. 134 ).
Possession
The plaintiff shoul9 be in actu.l, .ind not construction possession of the
immovable property. Moreover, the possession must be _Lurisdical possess,ion,
and not me:ely ~ctual possession . For example, possession as a custodian or
as a ca~etaker oras 8!17ere servant may be actual, but it is not jurisdical
possession so as to entitle him to maintain a suit under this section.
Similarly, a trespasser who has been dispossessed cannot sue under
this section. However, it has been held by the Bombay High Court that the
possession of a tenant holding over after the termination of the tenancy, is
juridical, and therefore, such a tenant can sue his landlord for recovery of
possession under this section if the landlord had dispossessed the tenant
without his consent. (Rudrappa v. Narasingrao, (1905) 29 Born. 213).
Trespasser
A mere trespasser cannot, by the very act of trespass, immediately and
without acquiescence, consider himself to be in possession against the person
whom he ejects. The true owner can, without reasonable delay, re-enter upon
the property. The true owner can recover possession forcibly from such a
trespasser. Even if such re-entry" is forcible, the true owner cannot be sued by
the trespasser who has entered by force or fraud, either for recovery of
possession under Section 6 or for ejectment upon the strength of his temporary
prior possession. (Mustapha Sahib v. Sentha Pillai, 23 Mad. 189}

Tenant or Lessee
As stated above, tenant holding over cannot be forcibly dispossessed.
Such a tenant can invoke the protection of Section 6 . .Similarly, a tenant by
sufferance, ;, e., a person who continues in possession of the property after the
expiry of the tenancy, cannot be regarded as _a mere tres~asser._His entry was
lawful, and therefore, he cannot be forcibly eJected. If he Is so eJected, he can
invoke the protection of Section 6.
Sel'v•nt
A servan~ forcibly ejected. He cannot sue his master under Section
·-.I ii respect 0 fproperty l.eft in his care, because a ~ervant or a ma~ager w~o
-.raau controt in a purely representative capacity cannot be said to be 1n
l!_!!!! poasenion. {Bawa Chhatagirv. Motonomal, 41.C. 359}

.,,..,. ,~:If u. plaintiff nad willingly and voluntarily parted with

«·"· - diipodHiid Ill due eou,,. of • .
•'
 THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT
10

. session of tile plaintiff must be physical. It must

The dis~os rf ence with the rights of enjoyment of the prop t be actua;
ouster. M ~
0
~~s nc:
constitute d1spos~ · . --
~ · . t·tt was in actual possession of land upon wh· h
"'h the plain 1 . 1c an.
\v ere d. possession complained of was realisation oft arket
Id and the is • o!ls b
was he , tall-keepers. 1t was held that such realisation Yth1:
5
defendant '.rom Mia v. Prakash, A.I.R . 1940 Cal. 464) Was nor
dispossession. ( Sona . .
·t . brought within the prescribed period, that is within s,·x
If the suI 1s . th · htf ' month
of dispossession, even e rig ul owner is preclud s
from the h~a\~tle to the land. A person who has been dispossessed
showing is
w~!from
ssfully sue under Section 6 . Any reference to hi t·tI in six
months can succe s I e to the
property ,s irrelevant. . . . "
. . n which 15 otherwise than m due course of law"
o,spossess10 .
It is further necessary that such dispossession should be otherwise than
in due course of law.
"In due course of /aw" means in the reg ular, normal process and effe t
law. It will not be in due course of law, if the di~possession has been by l~g~~
process which ought n?t to have been appl1~d . For example, possession
obtained through an officer of the Court who 1s not authorised to act m that
direction is not in due course of law. (Annopchand v. Ammerchand, AIR 1951
Mys. 101)
In one case, the plaintiff was dispossessed of his property by an order of
a Sub-Divisional Magistrate in p roceedings under S.145 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, in which the plaintiff was not e ven a party. The Rajasthan
High Court held that in su ch a case , the dispossession of the plaintiff is not in
due process of law. He can, therefore, file a suit under S.6 of the Act.
(Ganeshmalv. Ve/aram, AIR 2000 Raj. 76)
A person is said to be dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law.
~ is dispossessed by another acting of his own authority and without tne
intervention of a court of law')Th;-words "due course of law" are not merely
equivalent to the word nlegally'' for a thing which is perfectly legal may st111 be
· on a
. by no me~ns the regular, normal process and effect of law operating dlord
matter which has been laid before it for adjudication. Thus, though~ Ian f the
0
is entitled to possession of his land from his tenant after th e expt~ f his
. d f t d. assess him o
peno o tenancy, yet if the tenant holds over, he canno isp for 05585s100 .
own
c:;
authority.
•
If he does so I the tenant can sue the land10rd P
under this section.
7
s c.J).
2 C\' L J. 49 I 4
.

In E~st India Hotels Ltd. v. Syndicate Bank ~1 992) ~ - · liceflsee and

1
the Syndicate Bank had been occupying premises o~ E ~ · • fll'
th
continued in possession despite termination of e "ce~cebU . __. _, ..,
· on ill , . rl
broke out. rendering the premises unfit for carrying vatton, eH~
Bank temporarily shifted to another place. Arter reno . ·
 RECOVERING POSSESSION O F PP.O~(RTY 11

accommodate the Bank in the premises and trie 8anr f:,':-'j a ~ J't ur.-:ir;;r
1 'S ~~-=
The question was whether the suit could succeed . The Court w~s e,f tr-1:: 1 e11
triat after termination cf the licence, the Bank became a trespass~r ar.,j tr,~
1aw would not assist 1t in the recovery of possezs,,on
In the above case, explaining the words "due course c,f/a1i', tt-e S\.J~rr:;rre
Court held that, in each particular case , it mea:-1s such an e/.ercise cf n·,1c; +-D,J.J.U
by a duly const1tlAted Tribuoal....Qr Court in ac,:;ordanr::e Vitht~ prcced Jre
established by law under such safeguards for the protection of ind, , idual ri~ h~s
In its comprehensive sense. It means a course of l egal proceed ings a-:~~_r:,j_1_ ,:~
to the rules a.D.Q.J;)..ri.Q_£iples which haye been estaolisfit,Jl n- oursjstern cf
Jurisprudenc~for the enforcement and protection of p;,:,ate rights. Thu s , there
must be a Tribunal or Court competent to decide the subJect-matter of the su :t
or proceeding . there must be service of process on the defendant, the perscn
affected should have the right to be present before the Court or Tribuna l vih •ch
pronounces judgement upon the question of life, liberty or pror,ert,, he s'lcuid
be given right to be heard, and every material fact ·1✓hich bears on the qu1::st•cn
of fact or liability must be conclusively proved aga inst him
In Girajawoa v. Basawwa <AIR 1991 Kart. 51 ). the pla 1nt1ff. while in
possession, was unlawfully dispossessed by the act of the defendants. and
therefore she filed a suit under S 6 . Her tit!e was di~puted by the defendants
It was held that the question of considering any title does n,:;t arise in a suit
under S . 6; if the plaintiff proves illegal acts of dispossession, it is sufficient to
give her the necessary relief under S. 6 of the Act.
Problem : A tenant handed over possession of his premises to the landlord
for the marriage of the land lord . However, even after the marriag e was 0 ·1er,
the landlord failed to hand back possession of the premise s to the tenant, who
files a suit against the landlord under S. 6 of the Act. Will he succeed?
Ans. : No. He will not succeed . Even if it Is assumed that the tenant
discovered, later on. that he was deceived by the landlord, 1t does not change
the fact that he had handed over possession of the premises voluntarily and
with hts free consent. Therefore, S . 6 is not a pplica ble in such a case .

No suit against the Government

No suit can be filed under S. 6 against the G overnment. However, this
does not mean that the Government can dispossess a person in possession.
exoept under due process of law. ( Chandra & Co. v. State of Rajaslhan. Al R
1981 Raj. 217) .
Problem : A person is dispossessed, without his consent, of t wo
immoveble properties, X and Y respectively, otherwise than in due course of
law. He ia dilposMssed of V by the Central Government which has no btle to
I. He a •~•ssed of X by the person legally entitled to it. Has he any right
• - in elher QIN under Section 6 of the Specific Reltef Act, 1963?
 THE SPECIFIC RELIEF AC
T
12
der sec. 6 , no su
it sh at\ be brought ::L
Ans. : In this casa. tne
un . ht t ...
person has no ng o recover poss-~ ain
Go vernment. Therefore, es, 1t"'

c:,
d of by the Central Gove ...
hich he is dispossesse r rn m en t He can htCn
-w t1ad to X for possession ct •
sue the person
legall y en I under Sec. 6 cf th
proprietary r&mtdies e A.ct.
. d' tinguished fro m
ed1es ,s .
Possesso,Y re~ f ossession receives .
The mere nght ~ PRelief protection from the la·N
specific Act, a ~ disposs lJ.. ,.
Se ction 6 of the ,.. fh es se d from i"' -.. . ;+
torati n f as s,on. I e bn.ngs- the ••11,1..,•,a._ ·
property can sue for resf 5 .. ,. ..~.. . ..,.
dispossession, he can
months from the date de 0 succeed on mere"'p ' .- ~
ro
p

.
prior possessio · The
fen dant cann ot re sist the suit by setting up 0 ~
n. . .
f ownership or title to the a,.. c! 1-,1
property Is. . ··t l::~
himself. Th ~ quesdtiof nnd o an . e, h irrele va nt . "
t has a better tiU e must fi1rst surrender po "" ' :it
asuit. Ev~n _,f the /the n bri ss "'
ng his own suit based up
on his title. This pro..~~
to the plaintiff, an f edant
is to be distinguished ~
reme dY of the de en . tiff under section 6 of
from the possessory ,-,n
e.a~,
afforded to the p1am the Act. r&me-.
..,
WHY Posses S or y remedies : The rationa
le behind possess
remedies ory
There are three reasons
as to why a legal syste
remedies, even against the m affords possesser,
true owner, namely -
1_ lfviolent self-help is permitted, preserva
be at stake . Therefore: tion of peace and order -~
no one should be pemJ JiQ

-
into his own hands and1oJ
2. When there is a disputed
j1!
cibly eject a person in go
title, if dispossession by
ed
ss
te
es
tak
s.e
e~
n.
force is perr.-.ited.
it would put the persor:i in
prior possession into d1
who enjoys possession m ff1cultles. The pel"SCJ\
ust have the benefit of
possession is legally chall it until h;s ngtit t
enged.
3. Generally speaking,
proving title or ownershi
pnMng the fact of posses p is more difficult 1hat
sion. Therefore, if a perso
the person in possession n is forC&bty eieded,
must not enjoy the adva
force . ntage of hlS act d
Ntelher remedies available
under S. 5 and S. 6 are alt
· 1111 ~ remedy availab ernate ,emedi8S
le un de fS. 6 of the h:-t
can be avatled d
of dis os se ssio R"
iCiJ 7 1■ did dcles not sue under S. 1o:ever, lf the person -"°
•
.
L'.,-s
.,. :
l l e.{_S, - 6 wi 1n six months, he is no
5o[the k t, where he would have
to pr
t ban'ld troffl
. . . -
.. ove htS blle IOJ'I
• . . flf,Wdy of obtaining d
; : ' • s11
■ 11JJ1ast . . ,s. I ant atremate an
possession under s. 5 an
d ._
·· •
• - • .- .. 1ft Il l mailer d mutua#Y ercl u S N '. -: : -
--~ . He can fi e a claim on \tie _ .
h f Ii i~ Hl.m not be allowed
ID do t,olh. .

..• '
 RECOVERING POSSESSION OF PROPERTY 13

B. RECOVERY OF SPECIFIC MOVABLE PROPERTY (Ss. 7 & 8)

The Act makes two provisions with respect to movable property:
1. Recovery of specific movable property (S. 7)
II. Liability of a person who is not the owner of movable property, but is
in possession thereof (S. 8)

I. Recovery of specific movable property (S. 7)

S. 7 of the Act deals with recovery of specific movable property, i.e. Discuss the law
relating to reco-
movable property in ~pee~. namely a thing which is ascertained and is capable very of specifi c
~f identJficat1on , as for instance, a particular gold chain, a specific ship, etc. movable property
/~ny ~rson entitled to pos~e_ssion of such property can recover it in the mao..ner and the liability of
provided by the Code of C1v1I Procedure, 1908. II that is necessary under this the person in
possession who is
section is that the person should b the immediate possession of
not the owner to
such propert~~n a given case, he may be so entitled@yen .without being the deliver the
owner thereof-; property to the
person entitled to
.. It is cl;ified that a truJmay sue under S. 7 for the possession of its immediate
movable property to the beneficial interest in which the person for whom he is possession.
trustee is entitled. B .U. Nov. 2008
likewise, it is also clarified that a speciGfortemporary right to the present
possession of movable property is ~ufficient to support a suit 1.,mder the section.
In other words, the right onferred ~S. 7 is not
confined only to owners of
specific mov <" '

lllu•tration•
Write a short note
(a) A bequeaths land to B for his life with remainder to C. A dies. B enters
on : Mode of reco-
on the land, but C without B's consent, obtains possession of the title- very of specific
deeds. B may recover them from C. movable property.
(b) A pledges certain jewels to B to secure a loan. B disposes of them B.U. Ocl 2011
before he is entitled to do so. A, without having paid or tendered the Nov. 2012
Nov. 2013
amount of the loan, sues 8 for possession of the jewels. The suit
Nov. 2014
lhould be dismissed, as A is not entitled to their possession, whatever
tight he may have to secure their safe custody. (Donald v. Suckling,
(1866) LR.I .. Q . B. 585)
Cc) A receives • letter addressed to him by B. B gets back the letter
, without A:. consent A has such a property therein as entitles him to
'900\W it from 8. (Ollverv. O//ver(1861) II C.B.N.S. 139)
·. . M A ll1poale boOks and papers for safe custody with 8. B loees them
_.. ' • C lftda llem, but reftJNl tD deUver them to B when demanded.
· , ~ · _ , . . . -, . , ;.,. lhel1'I fram C, subject to C'1 right, If any, under s. 161
..--.'.. . . . . . . . ea,.,-ldAct. 1172. · . .. ,
·• . . . ,. - . . , . .
• - - - lslf•'•lldNwg edwittl ht._,of~ pa•
't1&',~. 1• .·:,>-tt•lita1 Ndf A'I '9M■e1fcm. A
·..... :.·.· .. · · ..•__ ·./.··· .
,,_, IUe-. I .·. . .... ~11•••·
~ . :. ..·.
·
 ,t1 ~\'a • th ,-)\~r
\'A}.\~·t ~' (l:lY ' h> f>~~
1ttf \NC lflC IHll ff ACT
H
.. ~~Olli t 11 ~t":i /w/d that u Llecr ee unc.ler S. 7
1t,c1 M~, 11 ,.\II I 11u11 of the A
w -:ibld prop erty In ciuestion Is not In the posses,.,
-I;!,1 1t 111n l • 111 ct
l-fl1111i1f l 10 P"u · ~nt 111 suc ll cuses, the only 1omedy would be ~ion
1 dam o
1,, p\1\\d l l,f u,n dr,f~tf\',,·,,!JdS:I v. Jot/111 Rt1111 , ILR 22 Mad
,,1 , 'il/HJl dll-"•· tf/\l/l (
. 478) gas
.
· .. 111 .. ,dr~on t.intttled to tile poss essi.on mea 11

, II• ct,pt d!l~l l I ns that suci.

., 111,h\ to tllr. Imm e d'10\e poss essi.on o f the good II
f
.,.,i1,,n ,mitt I"'"a • ., . b t It
s. Such
.. t , a~counl of own orsl" p; u , may n Iso be
n,1hl m:ty ""'" O, a temporary a
• _~ f
ht v.i,id, Is lndijptmuont o own ers 1p. (Potta Kum□
L., • h' 0
.,iti._,1a1 no . rl v. Nirmal Kumarr
,
Alt\ Hl-4t'. Cal 07)
CilH I whtnl)t11\rd pm ty wron gfull y depr ives a bailee of the baile
Q
1 d
d" ,utlldr u,o t.Milvf (/ o. t110 own er) who had no
previous possession
:~~:,.~1 ,,.,.Jy,
or tho ooi/va who. did havo prev ious possess~on by
virtue of a
•J.'l•cia1I ri\]ht created by the bmlment, can reco ver poss
essi on from the third
party (Fowlur v. Oown, HOG 1 B & P, 47)
However, neither a thief nor a pers on to who m he
has pledged the stolen
goods, , o. the thlof's pledgeo, has any right to imm
edia te possession, as In
auch cases, the owner hos not lost his right of own
ersh ip . ( Sagar Mal v. Abdul
H1fe t11,1964 2 Andhro WR 366)
Claims under S. 7 are claim s for r,.co very of spec
ific movables, i.e. those
that are ascertained or asce rtain able .~ decr ee
is gran ted for the rec~ cy of
th!t V!'tl p~e rty, and not Its equ~ vale ntor sµJ;)_ajitu
t~ Ther efor e, the goods
,hould becapable of being idiwtifieci: Coin s or grai ns
of rice cannot be said to
bl "ipoclfjc mgvable prgpectv" I as they cann ot
be dist i~ui she d from oth,r
c.9los or graioa.of rlce.(A suit for money will
thus not tL caveced by st
(Sanl<unni v. Govinda, ILR 37 Mad.-:381) But, a suit
for recovery of a ~
coin will lie under S 7. (Maung Ni v. Mau ng Aun
g, ILR 4 ·Rangoon, 227)
. liability of I person who Is not the own er of movable
property, but
I• In po11e11lon ther eof (S. 8)
Und er S. 8, any pers on havi ng the gossession
or control of a particular
article of movable property, of whic h he 1s not the owner,
ma be com lled
apeclftcall~ to deliver it to the person entitled,.to it ·
iate possession, in
ilfi of the following four cases: •
(1) When the thing claimed ls held by the defe
ndant •~ the ¢ or
!"'''!!
of the plaintiff.
.
Thua, A, proceeding to Europe, leaves his furniture in char
• hit agent during hla absence. S, without A's authority, pledQ
ge
lll'Ttl"
of:
c. a
.bnlluN to C, and knowing that had no right to pledge tht_
fu •A
~ It for •'•· C may

.s ~"'
In mo1111
m el\ed lo deli er the tumit\111-
. . M hatdl It a A'I INlt H, IIINll'tir'lfl v..Rowe,,,,_ ~"'4 ) 3 ...

IWIIIIOeldtNlhl,..dalmld.
.. .
. e,eplctn•III
.

n a a . l l l i l ~· ..: ,· ..
 A(COV(RING POSSESSION OF PROPERTY lS

Thus, Z has got pos~ess1on of an Idol belonging to A's family, and

~f which A 11 the proper custodian. Z may be compelled to de11.er tie
idol to A, as compensation 1n money would not, 1n this case, afforj
1d1quate relief for the loss of the family idol
(c) When it would b~ ;1tremely d1ff1cult to ascertain the actual damage
caused by its loss.
Thus, A ii entitled to a picture by a dead painter and a pair of rare
China vases. B has possession of them. The articles are of too special
• character to bear an ascertainable market value, B may be compelled
-
to dehver them to A. (Falcke v. Gray (1859) 4 Drew. 651)
(d) When the possession of the thing claimed has been wrongfully
t2nsferred from the plaintiff.
It It also provided that unless and until the contrary is proved, the Court
"11II, in respect of any article of movable property claimed under clause (b) or
t11u11 (c) of this section, presume, -
(a) that compensation In money would not afford the plaintiff adequate
relief for the loss of the thing claimed; and
(b) that It would be extremely difficult to ascertain the actual damage
c:euaed by its 1011.
M order under this section can be made in the case of rarr:1 things lil<e
,nffquel. Thue. In one case, the plaintiff was an heir who sued to recover a
,.,,,,,, horn with an ln1crlptlon thereon. The horn was a token of the family for
.~ - In the circum1tances. specific relief was granted to him, and the
1llffl WII ordered to be handed over to him. (Pusey v. Pusey)
A, w II going to USA for a long holiday with his family. leaves his furniture
of hit friend. B. In the circumstances, B becomes a trustee of
-Mii llld II t,ound to return it to A when the letter come back an asks
·~ •, s pledg• the furniture to C, even C will be subject lo
and must retum It to A when demanded by him. (Wood v.
,..., . . . . 304)
1111111 ttllt 1W g,vundt for Nllef under lhil NCtion are alnlolt
118 _,.forapaolc per1'om1Wecfaco ~ .
- · -. . four raqunmenll of s... .
orrmnl ofa inO.....
 ACT
16 THE SPECIFIC RELIEF

n S. 7 an d S. 8
Difference betwee 7 an d s 8 a s Under·
e ar e two po ints of difference betw.een. S. · ,
Ther . to re se nt Posse .·
on ha vin g as e~1al n ht "
ss,on of
(a ) Under s. 7, a pe rs
can rm a ,t even ag ai ns t the owner nf •L
movable property 't can b e ftle. d a ains t t~ ~at
property. Under S. 8, o su , eL y~ of the
owne r
·-~
property. e s~ ec if~
ca ns e f2_r the re tu fn of th
(b) Under S. 7, a pe rs on
U nd er s. a th e ·t c movable
its va lue.
~ '1 r t } '. '
property<ilf)lte rnat ef l fo r
su , can be on/y
ec ifi c
for the return of the sp

1¼11--r-" ~ ( '~ o m - ~

.. .
·,
al