In a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a claim for damages/mesne profits cannot be joined, but the decree for possession can be upheld while the portion awarding damages/mesne profits is set aside.

( 1 ) IN a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the Act) the plaintiff also sought a decree for mesne profits/damages, and the learned Additional District Judge granted both the reliefs. Hence this petition seeking to revise the judgment and the decree.

( 2 ) MR. J. M. Lal, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has been brief but incisive. As per him Section 6 of the Act being a very special Section giving a special and summary relief, the claim for damages/mesne profits cannot be joined in a suit under it and that as the respondent did claim damages/mesne profits also alongwith a decree for possession in her suit under Section 6 of the Act, it virtually became a title suit and outside the jurisdiction of Section 6 and that consequently, the impugned decree for possession and for damages renders the whole decree bad and liable to be set aside altogether. In support he has relied upon Tilak Chandra Doss v. Fatik Chandra Dass and Others 25 ILR 803 and Nazir Ahmad v. Abid Ali, 8 ALJR 910. Undoubtedly, both these judgments lend a full-throated support to the contention of Mr. Lal.

( 3 ) IN the case of Tilak Chandra Dass, a decree was passed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 giving the plaintiff possession and directing that the cost of removing huts and filling up excavations should be paid by the defendant under the decree. It was held that the later portion of the decree was beyond the scope of Section 9 and that consequently the entire decree was liable to be set aside.

( 4 ) IN Nazir Ahmed s case which too was under Section 9 of the Act of 1877, a decree had been passed for possession and damages. Relying upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Tilak Chandra Dass the Court held:

"the fact remains that a decree for possession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act and for damages is a bad decree, one liable to be set aside altogether and not capable of being split up in two portions - (1) a valid decree for possession as above; and (b) a bad decree for damages. "

( 5 ) HOWEVER, on the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent may be taken to have given up her relief for damages/mesne profits. As per him since decree for possession had been validly passed, it alone could be allowed to stand.

( 6 ) THOUGH not REFERRED TO to and relied upon, there are judgments in support of the proposition that in a suit under Section 6 (formerly Section 9) of the Act, relief of mesne profit or damages could be joined and reference in this connection may be made to Ram Parekh Bai v. Sheodibai Joti ILR Vol. XV All. 384 and Pandhari Shamrao Kolhe v. Meerabai 1980 Maharashtra L. J. 39. However, with respect, I do feel that since the right to possession of immovable property and the right to enjoy profits thereby are distinct causes of actions, aperson who stands dispossessed of immovable property is entitled to sue for its possession under Section 6 and has to leave the question of damages/mesne profits for another suit since that would depend on title, a matter which is beyond the pale of a suit under Section 6 of the Act. We can ill afford to ignore the object of Section 6 which clearly is to discourage forcible and unlawful possession and inorder to grant relief the Court is required only to see whether the person seeking relief was dispossessed within six months of the date of the institution of the suit. It is not required to go into any other question. This being the position, I do feel that a Court cannot pass a decree for damages/mesne profits under Section 6 of the Act alongwith a decree for possession. The question, however, is that if that be so is the impugned decree liable to be set aside altogether?

( 7 ) THE two judgments REFERRED TO to and relief upon by Mr. Lal have already been taken note of by me in the preceding paragraphs which do say that the entire decree must fall. However, altho