Restitution under Section 144 CPC fails where possession was not obtained under the declaratory decree

Restitution under Section 144 CPC applies only where a decree or order has been varied or reversed and a party has obtained a benefit under that erroneous decree. Where the earlier litigation ended only in a declaratory decree, with no direction for delivery of possession or payment of salary, the respondent's possession was treated as an independent act and not a benefit flowing from the decree. On those facts, the essential conditions for restitution were absent, and the Court's inherent power could not be invoked because no injury arose from any act of the Court. Restitution was therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or the inherent power of the Court, could be invoked to restore possession where the earlier decree was merely declaratory and the respondent's possession was not obtained under or in consequence of that decree.

Analysis: Restitution under Section 144 applies only when a decree or order has been varied or reversed and a party has received a benefit under the erroneous decree or order, so that the parties can be placed in the position they would have occupied but for it. The earlier litigation in the present case ended in a declaratory decree and did not direct delivery of possession or payment of salary. The respondent's taking of possession was an independent act and not a benefit received under the erroneous decree. The case therefore did not satisfy the essential conditions for restitution. The inherent jurisdiction of the Court also could not be used because no injury had been caused by any act of the Court.

Conclusion: Restitution was not maintainable and the refusal to restore possession was .

---