Category: Specific Relief Act 1963
A) Civil Procedure Code — Order II Rule 2(2) and (3) — object of — to avoid multiplicity of litigations on same cause of action — refusal or reluctance of the defendant to execute sale deeds in terms of the agreements — two suits filed by plaintiff, one seeking relief of permanent injunction and later for specific performance — cardinal requirement for application of the provisions contained in Order II Rule 2(2) and (3) is that the cause of action in the later suit must be the same as in the first suit — whether in the present case the cause of action for the first and second set of suits is one and the same — the foundation for the relief of permanent injunction claimed in the two suits furnished a complete cause of action to the plaintiff in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 to also sue for the relief of specific performance. Yet, the said relief was omitted and no leave in this regard was obtained or granted by the Court — plaint struck off — appeals allowed.
B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 — there is no provision in the Specific Relief Act, 1963 requiring a plaintiff claiming the relief of specific performance to wait for expiry of the due date for performance of the agreement in a situation where the defendant may have made his intentions clear by his overt acts.
(Date of decision : 07.09.2012) Click here for complete judgment
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 6 — plaintiff illegally dispossessed of immovable property — suit for possession — entitlement of plaintiff to recover possession to be adjudicated independently of the question of title — only question to be determined is whether the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed property and whether he had been illegally dispossessed therefrom on any date within six months prior to the filing of suit — held no reason to disturb findings of fact on the basis of evidence and materials recorded by courts below — appeal dismissed. (Date of decision : 27.08.2012) Click here for complete judgment