The Parliament of India passed the Specific Relief Act in 1963, based on the Law Commission of India's recommendation. The law of specific relief has a place alongside the law of remedies. Section 5 and 6 talks about the possession of immovable property whereas 7 and 8 talks about the possession of movable property were discussed in this research article. When damages aren't an adequate remedy, the term Specific Relief is used to describe a relief.

It's a treatment that focuses on the precise fulfilment of a commitment. The Specific Relief Act of 1963 clarifies and articulates the various reliefs that can be granted under its provisions, as well as providing the necessary legal framework. A lawsuit under the Specific Relief Act could be filed to force the individual in default to exhibit the contract. It accommodates the exact fulfilment of the commitment or the contract's specific exhibition. In this paper, we'll look at a section of the Specific Relief Act from 1963 that deals with remedies for the possession of movable and immovable property.

Introduction:
In India, the custom-based law principle of value had generally been followed until it became free in 1947. Anyway, it was in 1963 that the Specific Relief Act was passed by the Parliament of India keeping the proposal of the Law Commission of India in its 10th report on the act, the specific relief bill 1962 was presented in Lok Sabha in June 1962. The Law of Specific Relief has a place with the law which characterizes Remedies.

The articulation Specific Relief implies a relief in circumstances where damages can't be an adequate remedy. It is a cure that focuses on the exact satisfaction of a commitment. The suit under the Specific Relief Act might be brought to propel the exhibition of the contract by the individual in default. Such relief might be either certain or negative. It is positive when a case to its exhibition and negative when it is wanted to forestall the doing of things ordered or embraced as not to be finished.

The Specific Relief Act, 1963 clarifies and articulates the different reliefs which can be conceded under its arrangements, and furnishes the law as for them. It accommodates the exact satisfaction of the commitment or the specific exhibition of the contract. It is coordinated to the acquiring of the very thing which an individual is denied of and should be qualified for request. It is a cure by which involved with a contract is constrained to do or discard the very acts which he has embraced to do or exclude. Hence specific relief is a cure that focuses on the exact satisfaction of a commitment. It is healing when the court coordinates the specific presentation of the contract and defensive when the court makes an assertion or awards an order.

The Specific Relief Act, 1963 is worried about social equality and not reformatory laws, even civil law needs to deal with specific privileges, and these are leggings to ownership of the property. In this particular paper, we will cover a specific part of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which talks about the remedies related to the possession of movable and immovable property.

Remedies Regarding Possession Of Immovable Property Under Specific Relief Act, 1963

Section 5 and 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 give techniques to the recuperation of ownership of the specific immovable property. The plaintiff can be entitled to the immovable by proving its ownership or possession over the property. Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 states that an individual qualified for the ownership of a specific immovable property can recuperate it in the way endorsed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in basic words gives that any individual who is a legal proprietor of resolute property can get the ownership of such property by proper way of law. It implies that when an individual is qualified for the ownership of the specific immovable property, he can recuperate something similar by recording the suit according to arrangements of CPC.

He might record a suit for ejection on the strength of his title and can get a declaration for ejection based on the title within 12 years of the date of possession. Section 5 of the Act pronounces that in a suit for recuperation of immovable property by an individual qualified for arrangements Order XXI, Rule 35 and 36 of CPC would apply.

The essence of this section is 'title,' i.e., the person who has a better title is a person entitled to the possession. The title may be of ownership or possession. The word entitled to possession means having a legal right to title based on ownership of which the claimant has been deprived. The plaintiff must show that he had possession before the alleged trespasser got possession.

Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 states that "On the off chance that any individual is seized without his assent of immovable property in any case than at the appointed time of the law, he or any individual asserting through him, may by suit recuperate ownership thereof".

The fundamental object of Section 6 is to debilitate coercive dispossession on the rule that contested privileges are to be chosen by fair treatment of law and nobody ought to be permitted to go rogue, despite how great his title might be. Section 6 gives outline cures through Civil Courts for the rebuilding of ownership to a party confiscated by one more within 6 months of its dispossession passing on them to battle out the topic of their particular title in the competent court of law.

The object of this section seems to have been to give an extraordinary solution for the party illicitly confiscated by denying the dispossession of the advantage demonstrating a superior title to the land in question. Under Section 6 even if the person is not the actual owner of the immovable property, then also nobody can illegally and forcibly depose him from the property.

There are some case laws related to the provision mentioned under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In the matter of K.K. Verma v Union of India AIR 1954 Bom it was held that "after the expiry of the occupancy understanding, the inhabitant keeps on holding juridical belonging and can't be seized except if the proprietor gets a declaration of eviction against him".

In the matter of K. Krishna v A.N. Paramkusha Bai AIR 2011 AP 165 a tenant was seized persuasively by the proprietor however he got coercive repossession by the tenant. The Court, for this situation, held that "tenant could organize suit for repossession quickly when he was persuasively expelled, yet when he took coercive repossession, he became intruder and consequently couldn't be respected to be in legitimate belonging".

Remedies Regarding Possession Of Movable Property Under Specific Relief Act, 1963

Property of each portrayal except the immovable property is moveable property. Example: - Government Securities, share declarations are moveable property however not cash. Section 7 and 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 contains arrangements for recuperation of ownership of some specific moveable property. Section 7 of Act with the head "recovery of Specific movable property" states that, "an individual qualified for the ownership of the specific movable property might recuperate it in the way given by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).

What are the primary elements of Section 7 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? In the first place, the offended party should be qualified for the ownership of the moveable property. An individual might be qualified for the ownership of a thing either by proprietorship or by temperance of an exceptional right concerning the current belonging under section 7.

To prevail under this part, it is adequate if the offended party looking for ownership has a privilege to present or prompt belonging or via extraordinary or brief right to introduce ownership for example of a bailee, Pawnee, locater of lost products. Just those people can file a suit under section 7, who has the current owner of the movable property. An individual who doesn't have present ownership of the movable property can't file a suit under this part. The Limitation period is the 3 years for filing the suit from the date of acquiring the property wrongfully or unlawfully.

For instance:
Ram pledges his house to Shyam to get for the advance he had taken. Shyam discards the house to Gopal before he is qualified to do so. Ram, without having paid the measure of advance, sues Gopal for ownership of his home. The suit will be excused as he isn't qualified for the immediate possession of the house.

Section 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 comprises the arrangement identified with Liability of an individual in possession and not as a proprietor, to convey to an individual qualified for guaranteed ownership. It peruses as; Any individual having the belonging or control of a specific article of movable property, of which he isn't the proprietor, might be constrained explicitly to convey it to the individual qualified for the prompt ownership of, in any of the accompanying cases:

1. When the thing asserted is held by the litigant as the specialist or trustee of the offended party.
2. When pay in cash would not manage the cost of the satisfactory help for the deficiency of the thing asserted.
3. When it would be incredibly hard to find out the real harm brought about by its misfortune.
4. When the owner of the thing asserted has been improperly moved from the offended party.

The accompanying fixings should coincide to bring section 8 into activity:

• The respondent has full control or ownership of the article guaranteed.
• Such an article is a versatile property.
• The individual asserting the belonging should be qualified for sure immediate ownership.
• The respondent isn't the proprietor of the article.
• The thing asserted is held by the litigant as a specialist or when remuneration in cash would not manage the cost of sufficient alleviation for the misfortune or when it is extremely hard to find out the real harm of the thing guaranteed.

Major differences between Section 7 and Section 8 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 is no suit can be brought against the proprietor under section 8, while under section 7 an individual getting a charge out of exceptional or transitory right to introduce ownership can bring suit even against the proprietor and under section 7 a judgment is for the possession of movable property or the cash esteem in other option while under section 8 declaration is just for the return of specific article.

Conclusion
The Specific Relief Act,1963 is vital because the Indian Contract Act, 1872 gives relief just as damages in the event of a breach of contract. For the situation where the harm isn't ascertainable and where pay as relief isn't satisfactory to the misfortune, the offended party had no solution for specific execution and their Specific Relief act provides adequate relief.

To conclude, through the laws of sections 5 and 6, an individual qualified for the ownership of steady property or having a unique right to the belonging might recuperate it through the fair treatment of law. Similarly, section 7 and 8 enables the individual to recuperate ownership of the movable property.

References

1. https://www.lkouniv.ac.in/site/writereaddata/siteContent/202004131505182206sanjana_mittal_law_SPECIFIC_RELIEF_ACT.pdf
2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/possession-recovery-movable-immovable/
3. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1245/Possession.html
4. https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/Specific%20Relief%20Act%201963-47.pdf