Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 9

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 11

(a) Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), S. 9-Possession, suit for injunction Decree under S. 9 passed only on proof of plaintiff's dispossession within six months of institution of suit otherwise than to due course of law-Court cannot go into question of title Such decree or order not appealable and challengeable only by suit for possession based on title-Temporary injunction in such case not permissible. A decree under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act can be passed when it is proved that the plaintiff was dispossessed from the property in dispute by the defendant otherwise than in due course of law, within six months of the institution of the suit. In such case the Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of title of the parties and can only determine whether the defendant trespassed in the property in dispute within six months of the date of filing of the suit and decree for restoration of possession. This order and decree cannot be assailed by any appeal but can be challenged by a suit for posses sion based on title. By issuing a temporary injunction the Court will be frustrating a decree passed by a competent Court in exercise of jurisdiction vested in it by law and will in effect be protecting a trespasser. Faiz Muhammad v. Muhammad Buta P L D 1968 B J T fol. Mari v. Santaya A I R 1922 Bom. 216 and A I R 1955 Trip. 13 distinguished. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11-Res judicata---- Decision operates as res judicata only to extent of actual or construc tive determination of disputed question-Judgment and decree under S. 9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877-Cannot be res judicata on question of title-Such decision, however, res judicata so far as it decides dispossession of decree-holder by judgment-debtor other wise than in due course of law-Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), S. 9. Chhadek Karikar v. Sayad Ali Kaviraj A I R 1925 Cal. 1046 ref. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 9-Contention that decree under S. 9 could not allow pulling down of structures raised on disputed land and such having been done decree was void--Not allowed to be raised on revision when decree also challenged previously in revision before High Court and not…