AIR 1968 SUPREME COURT 1165 ::1968 Ker LT 182 ::1968 Ker LJ 176 ::1968 SCD 500

Supreme Court Of India

(From Kerala: AIR 1966 Ker 286)

Hon'ble Judge(s): M. Hidayatullah, S. M. Sikri, K. S. Hegde , JJJ

(A) Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877) , S.8, S.9— Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) , S.5, S.6— Scope - Provisions are not mutually exclusive-In a suit under S. 9 plaintiff need not prove title - If period of six months has passed defendant entitled to raise question of title and require plaintiff to prove better title. (1911) ILR 33 All 174 (FB). Overruled. Provisions of Ss. 8 and 9 of Specific Relief Act are not mutually exclusive so that after the period of six months is over it cannot be said that a cult based on prior possession alone is not possible. S. 8 of the Specific Relief Act does not limit the kinds of suit but only lays down that the procedure laid down by Civil P C must be followed. This is different from saying that a suit based on possession alone is incompetent after expiry of six months. The correct position is that if S. 9 of the Specific Relief Act is utilised the plaintiff need not prove title and the title of the defendant does not avail him. When, however, the period of 6 months has passed question of title can be raised by the defendant and if he does so the plaintiff must establish a better title or fail. In other words, the right is only restricted to possession only in a suit under S. 4 of the Specific Relief Act but that does not bar a suit on prior possession within 12 years and title need not be proved unless the de....