Alternative relief in a plaint that is u/s 6 of specific relief act
vinod sharma
(Querist) 15 February 2013
This query is : Resolved
Respected sir, parnam,
Can plaintiff demand both remedies one u/s 6 of specific relief act for possession of the suit property on the allegation that the defendants dispossessed him from the suit property within 6 months prior to the date of the suit and second u/s 5 of specific relief act as an alternative relief for possession of the suit property on the basis of his title in one and same suit ?
if no, then please suggest me some supreme court case law.
thanks.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 15 February 2013
for judgements see indian kanoon website . what are reliefs claimed in plaint as claimed . state full facts of case
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 15 February 2013
state detailed facts.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 15 February 2013
A suit u/s 6 of the SR Act is of a very limited scope of possession,if it was with plaintiff at all.
So such a suit can not be converted into a title suit even by amendment of plaint,amendment if moved shall be rejected.
(seeG.Gurunathan vs Mrs.J.Muthulakshmi on 9 April, 2011 by Madras High Court on http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1971983/ )
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 16 February 2013
Both alternative and inconsistent reliefs can be prayed for in a single suit if the relief sought for is within the jurisdiction of the same court.
Your suit would be maintainable if you claim both reliefs in the same suit.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 16 February 2013
True law allows inconsistent pleadings to take making base of several relief where a party has to choose which case it shall prove if the two taken or destructive of each other,e.g.,claim of title and possession and in alternative easement over same land.
But here the question is otherwise.Section 6 of SRA is about summary enquiry of possession,that is why here 1/2 of court fees is paid.It is like proceedings of 145 of Cr.P.C.It can not be allowed to be converted as a title suit even by amendment as the very NATURE of the suit shall stand changed.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 16 February 2013
agree with experts.
vinod sharma
(Querist) 17 February 2013
sir,prabhakar singh ji, why can plaintiff not raise defene of order 2(2) and order 3 of ciwil procedure code at the time of finale hearing ? (sir, i am deffendent)
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 17 February 2013
Order 2 rule 2 as well as 3 gets attracted to a regular suit and not to a summary suit of dispossession of plaintiff for which limitation is 6 months only while for a regular suit the limitation is 12 years from the date of dispossession.
If a suit of plaintiff filed u/s 6 of SRACT fails,he is not precluded from bringing a suit of possession on the basis of his title.Read "6(4)Nothing in this section bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof."you should also read s.6"(3)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."
And then try to conclude deductions.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 17 February 2013
Order 2 rule 2 as well as 3 gets attracted to a regular suit only and not to a summary suit of dispossession of plaintiff for which limitation is 6 months only while for a regular suit the limitation is 12 years from the date of dispossession.No appeal or review lies against judgement u/s 6 S.R.Act,and subsequently a regular suit is expressly allowed.
If a suit of plaintiff filed u/s 6 of S.R.ACT ,he is not precluded from bringing a suit of possession on the basis of his title.Read "6(4)Nothing in this section bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof."you should also read s.6"(3)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."
I remind you to understand that no question of title either of the plaintiffs or of the defendant can be raised or gone into in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.All that the Court is then required to consider is whether an evicted person has been wrongfully dispossessed and he has come to the Court within six months from the date of dispossession.
Do not misconceive things,have clear ideas of law.
It appears you did not go through citation I provided you or you could not comprehend it properly.
