Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose over Bungalow No.12 at Thimayya Road, Cantonment Lucknow, originally owned by Smt. Vimla Bishnoi, who bequeathed it to Anil Bishnoi via a registered Will. Following her death on 15th May 1996, Harsh Bishnoi, the respondent No.1, sought to claim title based on an alleged oral family settlement from 1988, leading to a series of legal actions including a suit for declaration of title and a writ petition for restoration of possession. The trial court initially granted an ex-parte interim injunction against the respondent No.2 from transferring the property, but the respondent No.2 claimed he was unaware of this order. The appellant purchased the property from the respondent No.2 on 17th July 2002. The respondent No.1 filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for restoration of possession, which was complicated by the pendency of a writ petition. The trial court allowed the application for restoration of possession, but the High Court later affirmed this without adequately addressing the lack of an injunction against the respondent No.2. The Supreme Court found the High Court's approach unsustainable as it failed to recognize that no injunction against interference with possession was in place. The Court directed the trial court to reassess the evidence, including oral testimonies, to determine who was in actual possession at the relevant time and to resolve the matter within three months. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Restoration of Possession - Jurisdiction of Court - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 151 - The trial court directed restoration of possession based on the finding that the respondent No.1 was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit and injunction order. The Supreme Court held that the trial court must reassess the evidence, including oral evidence, to determine actual possession at the relevant time (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the revisional application against the trial court's order allowing restoration of possession.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and trial court, directing the trial court to reassess the application for restoration of possession afresh, allowing both parties to present oral and documentary evidence, and to resolve the matter within three months.
Law Points
- Restoration of possession
- Injunction orders
- Section 151 CPC
- Oral family settlement
- Title dispute
