Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. In Adcon Electronics Private Limited (supra), the Supreme Court examined Clause 12 of the Letters Patent as applicable to the High Court of Adjudicator at Bombay with specific reference to the expression? suit for land?. Reference was made to the decision of the Federal Court in Moolji Jaitha and Co. v. The Khandesh Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Limited AIR (37) 1950 Federal Court 83, wherein the import of the said expression was considered by a Bench of five Judges. Justice Fazal Ali held that the said expression broadly speaking covers three classes of suits viz. (i) suits for determination of title to land (ii) suits for possession of land and (iii) suits in which reliefs claimed, if granted, would directly affect title to or possession of land. Justice Patanjali Shashtri observed that the said words were also apt to connote suits which primarily and substantially seek adjudication upon title to an immovable property or right or interest therein. Justice Mahajan felt that a comprehensive definition may not be feasible and correct to propound. The test is the nature of the suit and the substance of the controversy, which is the determining factor. If the controversy is about land or an immovable property and the court is called upon to decide conflicting claims the suit is for land. The cause of action and subject matter should be primarily relating to land or immovable property and not merely incidentally relating to land or immovable property. A suit when the above test is satisfied can be regarded as one which falls within the four corners of the expression "suit for land". The Federal Court made a distinction between a suit for specific performance simplicitor and a suit Page 2046 for specific performance along with relief for possession. In Adcon Electronics Private Limited (supra), the Supreme Court noted the provisions of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act and held that in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff can also pray for a separate relief for possession, partition or separate possession. It was held that no court can grant relief for possession of land, partition etc. in a suit for specific performance unless a prayer to that effect is specifically made. A suit for specific performance, therefore, is not a "suit for land" or a suit in which interest or right in a land is the primary subject matter. A suit for specific performance is for enforcement of the term of the contract and title of the land or right or interest in the land is not the primary subject matter in a suit for specific performance, with no further relief.

14. The decision of the Supreme Court in Adcon Electronic Private Limited has to be distinguished from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi (supra). In the said case, the Supreme Court has held that Section 16(d) was applicable as the suit in question was for specific performance and other reliefs including possession and thus was a suit in respect of right or interest in land. The prayer clause of the suit has been quoted in the judgment. In the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi in addition to decree for specific performance, the plaintiff therein had also prayed for decree of delivery of possession. Therefore, Harshad Chiman Lal Modi's case was not one of specific performance simplicitor but a suit praying for decree of specific performance as well as possession along with other reliefs.