The Parliament of India passed the Specific Relief Act in 1963, based on the Law
Commission of India's recommendation. The law of specific relief has a place
alongside the law of remedies. Section 5 and 6 talks about the possession of
immovable property whereas 7 and 8 talks about the possession of movable
property were discussed in this research article. When damages aren't an
adequate remedy, the term Specific Relief is used to describe a relief.
treatment that focuses on the precise fulfilment of a commitment. The Specific
Relief Act of 1963 clarifies and articulates the various reliefs that can be
granted under its provisions, as well as providing the necessary legal
framework. A lawsuit under the Specific Relief Act could be filed to force the
individual in default to exhibit the contract. It accommodates the exact
fulfilment of the commitment or the contract's specific exhibition. In this
paper, we'll look at a section of the Specific Relief Act from 1963 that deals
with remedies for the possession of movable and immovable property.
In India, the custom-based law principle of value had generally been followed
until it became free in 1947. Anyway, it was in 1963 that the Specific Relief
Act was passed by the Parliament of India keeping the proposal of the Law
Commission of India in its 10th report on the act, the specific relief bill 1962
was presented in Lok Sabha in June 1962. The Law of Specific Relief has a place
with the law which characterizes Remedies.
The articulation Specific Relief
implies a relief in circumstances where damages can't be an adequate remedy. It
is a cure that focuses on the exact satisfaction of a commitment. The suit under
the Specific Relief Act might be brought to propel the exhibition of the
contract by the individual in default. Such relief might be either certain or
negative. It is positive when a case to its exhibition and negative when it is
wanted to forestall the doing of things ordered or embraced as not to be
The Specific Relief Act, 1963 clarifies and articulates the different reliefs
which can be conceded under its arrangements, and furnishes the law as for them.
It accommodates the exact satisfaction of the commitment or the specific
exhibition of the contract. It is coordinated to the acquiring of the very thing
which an individual is denied of and should be qualified for request. It is a
cure by which involved with a contract is constrained to do or discard the very
acts which he has embraced to do or exclude. Hence specific relief is a cure
that focuses on the exact satisfaction of a commitment. It is healing when the
court coordinates the specific presentation of the contract and defensive when
the court makes an assertion or awards an order.
The Specific Relief Act, 1963 is worried about social equality and not
reformatory laws, even civil law needs to deal with specific privileges, and
these are leggings to ownership of the property. In this particular paper, we
will cover a specific part of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which talks about
the remedies related to the possession of movable and immovable property.
Remedies Regarding Possession Of Immovable Property Under Specific Relief Act, 1963
Section 5 and 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 give techniques to the
recuperation of ownership of the specific immovable property. The plaintiff can
be entitled to the immovable by proving its ownership or possession over the
property. Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 states that an individual
qualified for the ownership of a specific immovable property can recuperate it
in the way endorsed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in basic words gives that any
individual who is a legal proprietor of resolute property can get the ownership
of such property by proper way of law. It implies that when an individual is
qualified for the ownership of the specific immovable property, he can
recuperate something similar by recording the suit according to arrangements of
He might record a suit for ejection on the strength of his title and can
get a declaration for ejection based on the title within 12 years of the date of
possession. Section 5 of the Act pronounces that in a suit for recuperation of
immovable property by an individual qualified for arrangements Order XXI, Rule
35 and 36 of CPC would apply.
The essence of this section is 'title,' i.e., the
person who has a better title is a person entitled to the possession. The title
may be of ownership or possession. The word entitled to possession means having
a legal right to title based on ownership of which the claimant has been
deprived. The plaintiff must show that he had possession before the alleged
trespasser got possession.
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 states that "On the off chance that
any individual is seized without his assent of immovable property in any case
than at the appointed time of the law, he or any individual asserting through
him, may by suit recuperate ownership thereof".
The fundamental object of
Section 6 is to debilitate coercive dispossession on the rule that contested
privileges are to be chosen by fair treatment of law and nobody ought to be
permitted to go rogue, despite how great his title might be. Section 6 gives
outline cures through Civil Courts for the rebuilding of ownership to a party
confiscated by one more within 6 months of its dispossession passing on them to
battle out the topic of their particular title in the competent court of law.
The object of this section seems to have been to give an extraordinary solution
for the party illicitly confiscated by denying the dispossession of the
advantage demonstrating a superior title to the land in question. Under Section
6 even if the person is not the actual owner of the immovable property, then
also nobody can illegally and forcibly depose him from the property.
There are some case laws related to the provision mentioned under Section 6 of
the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In the matter of K.K. Verma v Union of India AIR
1954 Bom it was held that "after the expiry of the occupancy understanding, the
inhabitant keeps on holding juridical belonging and can't be seized except if
the proprietor gets a declaration of eviction against him".
In the matter of K. Krishna v A.N. Paramkusha Bai
AIR 2011 AP 165 a tenant was
seized persuasively by the proprietor however he got coercive repossession by
the tenant. The Court, for this situation, held that "tenant could organize suit
for repossession quickly when he was persuasively expelled, yet when he took
coercive repossession, he became intruder and consequently couldn't be respected
to be in legitimate belonging".
Remedies Regarding Possession Of Movable Property Under Specific Relief Act, 1963
Property of each portrayal except the immovable property is moveable property.
Example: - Government Securities, share declarations are moveable property
however not cash. Section 7 and 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 contains
arrangements for recuperation of ownership of some specific moveable
property. Section 7 of Act with the head "recovery of Specific movable property"
states that, "an individual qualified for the ownership of the specific movable
property might recuperate it in the way given by the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1908 (5 of 1908).
What are the primary elements of Section 7 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? In
the first place, the offended party should be qualified for the ownership of the
moveable property. An individual might be qualified for the ownership of a thing
either by proprietorship or by temperance of an exceptional right concerning the
current belonging under section 7.
To prevail under this part, it is adequate if
the offended party looking for ownership has a privilege to present or prompt
belonging or via extraordinary or brief right to introduce ownership for example
of a bailee, Pawnee, locater of lost products. Just those people can file a suit
under section 7, who has the current owner of the movable property. An
individual who doesn't have present ownership of the movable property can't file
a suit under this part. The Limitation period is the 3 years for filing the suit
from the date of acquiring the property wrongfully or unlawfully.
Ram pledges his house to Shyam to get for the advance he had
taken. Shyam discards the house to Gopal before he is qualified to do so. Ram,
without having paid the measure of advance, sues Gopal for ownership of his
home. The suit will be excused as he isn't qualified for the immediate
possession of the house.
Section 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 comprises the arrangement identified
with Liability of an individual in possession and not as a proprietor, to convey
to an individual qualified for guaranteed ownership. It peruses as; Any
individual having the belonging or control of a specific article of movable
property, of which he isn't the proprietor, might be constrained explicitly to
convey it to the individual qualified for the prompt ownership of, in any of the
The accompanying fixings should coincide to bring section 8 into activity:
- When the thing asserted is held by the litigant as the specialist or
trustee of the offended party.
- When pay in cash would not manage the cost of the satisfactory help for
the deficiency of the thing asserted.
- When it would be incredibly hard to find out the real harm brought about
by its misfortune.
- When the owner of the thing asserted has been improperly moved from the
- The respondent has full control or ownership of the article guaranteed.
- Such an article is a versatile property.
- The individual asserting the belonging should be qualified for sure
- The respondent isn't the proprietor of the article.
- The thing asserted is held by the litigant as a specialist or when
remuneration in cash would not manage the cost of sufficient alleviation for
the misfortune or when it is extremely hard to find out the real harm of the
Major differences between Section 7 and Section 8 of Specific Relief Act, 1963
is no suit can be brought against the proprietor under section 8, while under
section 7 an individual getting a charge out of exceptional or transitory right
to introduce ownership can bring suit even against the proprietor and under
section 7 a judgment is for the possession of movable property or the cash
esteem in other option while under section 8 declaration is just for the return
of specific article.
The Specific Relief Act,1963 is vital because the Indian Contract Act, 1872
gives relief just as damages in the event of a breach of contract. For the
situation where the harm isn't ascertainable and where pay as relief isn't
satisfactory to the misfortune, the offended party had no solution for specific
execution and their Specific Relief act provides adequate relief.
through the laws of sections 5 and 6, an individual qualified for the ownership
of steady property or having a unique right to the belonging might recuperate it
through the fair treatment of law. Similarly, section 7 and 8 enables the
individual to recuperate ownership of the movable property.