Recovery of Specific Movable Property – Section 7 | Specific Relief Act

Section 7 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 Provides that:

1. Agreement:

Under the agreement being of a limited duration the decree in the present form could not have been passed in favour of plain­tiff. Whatever rights he had come to end with the expiry of the period men­tioned by the agreement.

Image Source:

2. Application for amendment—Propriety of:


In the instant case, the suit was filed for specific performance and the direction to the defendant- appellant to purchase the goods and for the rendition of accounts on the ground that as per the contract the order of purchase was not placed and the same have been purchased from the other party.

During the pendency of the suit, the period of contract was expired and in the written statement it has been objected that since the period of contract had expired, there­fore, relief for damages should only be claimed. In these circumstances, the amendment application was filed claiming relief for damages. The cause of action was the same for the relief sought by way of amendment. Order allowing application for amendment held proper. The order of the appellate Court-needs no interference.

3. Cancellation of alienation:

Where a suit is for recovery of posses­sion, after cancellation of alienation in favour of the defendant, on the ground that a previous valid alienation has been made, the suit will not fall under Article 64.

4. Moveable property:

The plaintiff/appellant must succeed or fail on his own case and cannot take advantage of weakness in the defendant/respondent’s case to get a decree in a suit for recovery of specific move- able -property.

5. Permissibility of:


Only document of offer placed before Court and all relevant documents not placed by the plaintiff. Further, intricacies and true nature of transaction not explained. Business terminology of steel weight to weight also not explained. Thus, plaintiff would succeed only on proving his case without getting advantage of weakness of defendant’s case. Conse­quently, no interference was made with refusal of decree in respect of por­tion not covered by admission of defendant.