RESPONDENT: REV. FATHER K. C. ALEXANDER & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/02/1968 HIDAYATULLAH, M. HIDAYATULLAH, M. SIKRI, S.M. HEGDE, K.S. CITATION: 1968 AIR 1165 1968 SCR (3) 163 ACT: Specific Relief Act, 1877 (1 of 1877), ss. 8 and 9Suit under s. 8 whether must be based on proof of titlejustertiiIndian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), s. 110 presumption underThe Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) Arts. 64 and 65Travancore Limitation Regulation (VI of 110 M.E. s. 32)Travancore Specific Relief Act XIII of 1115. ss. 7 and 8(Travancore) Regulation IV of 1091Effect of incurring penalty under Regulations on right to suit for recovery of possession of landCode of Civil Procedure 1908 (Act 5 of 1908), O VI, r. 17Amendment of pleadingsEffect of laches. HEADNOTE: 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 Kuthakapattom lease of this area which was granted and the Society entered into 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(1) and the 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(1) as well. He asked for restoration of possession of L(1) 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 Kuthakapattom lease in respect of a party of L(1) as well, and this portion was marked as L (1 ) (b), the rest of the suit land being marked as L(1) (a). The Society in its written statement did not aver that it was not in possession of L(1) (a). Subsequently, it attempted by argument to limit its defence to L(1) (b) on the basis of the 1948 base, But although the suit was pending in the trial court for 17 years no application for amendment of the pleadings to this effect was made. The trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit for L(1) (a). last day of the hearing of the appeal, for amendment of its written statement limiting its defence to portion L(1) (b), disclaiming all interest in portion L(1) (a). The High Court rejected the application as belated and decreed the suit against the Society in respect of L(1) (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 for possession without proof of title was incompetent. On facts the Society's plea was that the plaintiff had 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 plaintiff's allegations as tohis forcible dispossession from the, suit land by the Society. On examination of the evidence there was no reason to depart from the finding of the High Court. [171 DE] (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 164 time drawn in Roman Law between the two kinds of Interdicts namely, de vi cotidiana and de vi armada. In the time of Justinian the two Interdicts de vi were fused and there was only one action representing both. The appeal to Roman Law was therefore of no assistance. [174 BC] (iii) The contention that while under s. 9 of the Specific Relief Act a suit based merely on prior possession must be filed within six months, while a suit, under s. 8 based on proof of title may be filed within 12 years cannot 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 Cod. of Civil Procedure must be followed. This is 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 suits of a civil nature are triable excepting suits of which