Liability of Person in Possession, not as Owner, to Deliver to Persons Entitled to Immediate Possession – Section 8 | Specific Relief Act

Section 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 Provides that:

Image Source: i.ytimg.com

1. Amendment:

It is a settled-law that at the time of allowing of amend­ment, the Court has only to look as to whether the ingredients of Order VI, Rule 17 are satisfied or not. Rule 17 is very much clear. It provides that amendment can be allowed at any stage of proceedings on such terms as may be just. There is no quarrel with the proposition that the amendment was sought at the trial stage and that too, without changing the nature of the suit. Order VI, Rule 17 has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions and the Apex Court has given guidelines for the law Courts that the Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper-technical view. It has also been emphasized in the said decision that technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the Court in admin­istration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicities of litigation.

2. Performance of contract:

Trial Court found that there was no con­tract of sale, as required by Article 299 between plaintiff and Union of India. Rather, plaintiff was in unlawful occupation and, therefore, after evicting him, Union of India, delivered possession of house to the appellant in ac­cordance with law. Refusal of decree by trial Court. Erroneously reversed by High Court. However, since only appellant came to Supreme Court against decree of High Court, his right could not be adversely affected in execution of decree by plaintiff against Union of India.

3. Recovery of movable property:

In the instant case, the suit was for the recovery of 250 Tolas gold and in the alternative of its money value Rs. 34,000/-. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The appeal preferred was dismissed. The Supreme Court in appeal under Article 136 of the Constitu­tion interfered with the concurrent findings of the Courts below by holding that the story of the plaintiff that he had entrusted 250 Tolas gold to the defendant was baseless and artificial and set aside the judgments of the lower Courts.