DHARAM BIR Vs. ANCHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the Act) the plaintiff also sought a decree for mesne profits/damages, and the learned Additional District Judge granted both the reliefs. Hence this petition seeking to revise the judgment and the decree.

(2.) Mr. J.M. Lal, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has been brief but incisive. As per him Section 6 of the Act being a very special Section giving a special and summary relief, the claim for damages/mesne profits cannot be joined in a suit under it and that as the respondent did claim damages/mesne profits also alongwith a decree for possession in her suit under Section 6 of the Act, it virtually became a title suit and outside the jurisdiction of Section 6 and that consequently, the impugned decree for possession and for damages renders the whole decree bad and liable to be set aside altogether. In support he has relied upon Tilak Chandra Doss v. Fatik Chandra Dass and Others. and Nazir Ahmad v. Abid Ali, 8 ALJR 910. Undoubtedly, both these judgments lend a full-throated support to the contention of Mr. Lal.

(3.) In the case of Tilak Chandra Dass, a decree was passed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 giving the plaintiff possession and directing that the cost of removing huts and filling up excavations should be paid by the defendant under the decree. It was held that the later portion of the decree was beyond the scope of Section 9 and that consequently the entire decree was liable to be set aside.