Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.43 seconds)The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Section 55 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 21 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Arjun Singh vs Sahu Maharaj Narain on 10 January, 1950
(14) Prior to the Act of 1963 the Act in force was the Specific Relief Act of 1887 (Act No. 1 of 1887). Under the old Act it was not necessary for a plaintiff to ask for the relief of possession separately and specifically. It was enough for him to claim only a decree for specific performance. Relief of possession was comprehended in the decree for specific performance. Under the old Act the High Courts had held that the claim to possession was included in the claim to specific performance. Decided cases laid down that possession can be asked for in execution of a decree for specific performance even though possession was not claimed in the plaint on the ground that the relief of possession is merely incidental to that of execution of a deed of conveyance: See Arjun Singh v. Sahu Maharaj Narain, and Kartik Chandra v. Dibakar Bhattacharjee, .
The Companies Act, 1956
Kartik Chandra Pal vs Dibakar Bhattacharjee on 24 February, 1949
(14) Prior to the Act of 1963 the Act in force was the Specific Relief Act of 1887 (Act No. 1 of 1887). Under the old Act it was not necessary for a plaintiff to ask for the relief of possession separately and specifically. It was enough for him to claim only a decree for specific performance. Relief of possession was comprehended in the decree for specific performance. Under the old Act the High Courts had held that the claim to possession was included in the claim to specific performance. Decided cases laid down that possession can be asked for in execution of a decree for specific performance even though possession was not claimed in the plaint on the ground that the relief of possession is merely incidental to that of execution of a deed of conveyance: See Arjun Singh v. Sahu Maharaj Narain, and Kartik Chandra v. Dibakar Bhattacharjee, .
Pt. Balmukand vs Veer Chand on 12 February, 1954
(15) PT. Balmakand v. Veer Chand, may be taken as fairly representative of the view which prevailed before the enactment of the new Act in 1963. There a division bench held that where in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale no relief for possession is claimed and consequently the decree passed in the suit contains no relief of delivery of possession, the court executing the decree is competent to deliver possession; an order directing delivery of possession being merely incidental to the execution of the deed of sale.
Section 5 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
1