NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY LTD. versus REV. FATHER K. C. ALEXANDER & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 163 · Decided: 12-02-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
: 
B 
c 
D 
E 
11 
NAIR SE~VICE SOCJf:TY L'ID. 
v. 
REV. FAtllER K. C. ALEXANi>l!;R & ORS. 
February 12, 1968 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, s. M. SIKlll ANO K. s. HEGDE, JJ.] 
Specific Relief Act, 1877 (1 of 1877), ss. 8 aild 9-Suit under s. 8 
wheiher must he based on proof of title-Jus-tertli-lndian Evidence Act, 
1872 (!of 1872), s. 110 presumption under-The Limitation Act, 1963 
(36 of 1963) Arts. 64 and 65-Travancore Limikztion Regulation (VI of 
110 M.E. s. 32)-Travancore Specific Relief.Act XJ/l of 1115, ss. 7 and 
8-(Trcvancore) Regulation IV of 1091-Effect <Jf incurring penalty 
under Regulations on right to bri111: suit for ·recov~ry of pos,ression -of land 
-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908), 0. VJ, r. 11-Amem/. 
ment of pkadings-Effect of /aches. 
After a case under the Travancore Land Conservancy Regulation · IV 
of 1094 M.E. the plaintiff was evicted from 160 acres of Poramboke land. 
Thereafter in August 1938 the appellant Society applied for a Kuthaka-
pattom lease of this area which was granted and the Society entered inti) 
possession in July 1939. The suit land was adjacent to the above land. In 
the map prepared by the, Court Commissioner the suit land was marked 
as L(l) and tho area of 160 acres aforesaid as L(2). In his suit which 
was filed in 1942 the plaintiff alleged that after ·entering into possession of 
L(2) the Society in October 1939 through its agents forcibly dispossessed 
him of L(l) as well. He. asked for restoration of ~session of L(I) and 
for related relief. 
The Society in its defence contended that the plaint 
lands were Government Reserve and that the plaintiff was dispossessed by 
Government from these lands when he was dispossessed of L(2). In 1948 
the Society was granted Kuthakapa•tom lease in respect of a party of L(I) 
as well, .and this portion was marked as L(l)(b), the rest of the suit land 
being marked as L(l)(a). 1he Society in its written statement did not 
aver that it was not in possession of L(l)(a). Subsequently, it attempted 
by argument to limit its defence to L(l)(b) on the !IQis of the 1948 base, 
But although the- suit was pending iii the trial cou'rt for 17 years no appli-
cation for amendmen! of the pleadings to this effect was made. The trial 
court decreed the plaintiff's suit for L(l)(a). In the High Court the 
Society applied on the last day of the hearing of the aJlpeal, for amendment 
of its wntten statement limiting its defence to portion L( I )(b), disclaim-
ing all interest in portion L(l)(a). The High Court rejected the applica-
tion as belated and decreed the suit against the Society in respect of L(l) 
(b) as well. The Society appealed, by certificate to this Court. The main 
contention urged on behalf of the Society based on the Travancore law 
corresponding to ss. 8 and 9 of the. Indian Specific Relief Act. was that 
after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession a suit folr 
possession without proof of title was incompetent. On facts the Society's 
plea was that the plaintiff bad been evicted by the Government from the 
suit lands at the same time as he was evicted from L(2). 
HELD : (i) The High Court accepted the plaintijf's allegations as to 
his forcible dispossession from the suit land by the Society. On examina-
tion Of the evidence there was no reason to depart from the finding of the 
High Court. [171 D-E] 
(ii) It cannot be said that the distinction between ss. 8 and 9 of the 
Indian Specific Relief Act was based on the distinction that was at one 
163 
164 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19681 3 S.C.R. 
time drawn in R_qman Law bet,\\'.~en the two kinds of Interdicts namely, 
tie vi cotidlana and de vi crmilta. In the time of Justinian the two Interdicts 
de vi ~-ere fused and there was only one action representing both. The 
appeal to Roman Law, l"as· therefore of no .assistance. [)74 B-C] 
(iii) The contention that while under s. 9 of the Specific Relief Act a 
SJ.lit based mereJy on prior possession must be filed within six months, while 
a suit unper s. 8 based on proof of title may be filed within 12 years can~ 
not be sustained. Section 8 of the Act does not limit the kinds of suit but 
only lays down that the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Proce-
dure must be followed. This i_s very different from saying that a suit based 
on possession alone is incompetent after the expiry of 6 months. Under · 
s. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure itself all sui~s of a civil nature are 
triable excepting suits of w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.