Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay heard a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and decree dated 22 July 1999 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay in Short Cause Suit No. 3733/1992. The suit had been filed by M/s Makhija Vohra Builders (respondent No. 1) against Janardan Narsingh Mahajan (petitioner) under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking restoration of possession of a ground floor flat situated at Anant Vihar Cooperative Housing Society, Khar West, Mumbai, and compensation for alleged wrongful dispossession. The dispute originated from a development agreement dated 5 July 1979 under which the petitioner, as lessee of the plot, granted development rights to two developers who constructed a building. The ground floor flat was to be returned to the petitioner upon repayment of Rs. 45,000. The developers eventually handed over possession to one Mr. Ramniklal Damji Gada, who claimed under an agreement with the petitioner. Subsequently, through a series of transactions and a tenancy agreement dated 1 February 1986, the respondent claimed to have become a tenant in possession. The respondent alleged that on 13 January 1989, the petitioner and several others forcibly broke open the lock and entered the suit flat, dispossessing them. The suit was filed on 11 July 1989, but due to prolonged office objections, it was registered only in 1992. Initially decreed ex parte on 11 February 1999, the ex parte decree was set aside in an earlier writ petition, and the suit was remanded with a direction to permit the petitioner to file a written statement and for expeditious disposal. After trial, the City Civil Court again decreed the suit, holding that the respondent had proven possession and dispossession. The petitioner contended that the trial court overlooked material contradictions in the respondent’s evidence, ignored the fact that the respondent’s witnesses were themselves inconsistent, and wrongly accepted the respondent’s version despite a complete lack of documentary proof such as electricity bills, rent receipts, or any other independent evidence of possession. It was argued that the petitioner was a victim of fraud and that the judgment was perverse. The respondent supported the impugned judgment, urging that findings of fact should not be disturbed under Article 227. The High Court examined Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and emphasized that the remedy is summary in nature and requires the plaintiff to prove actual possession and dispossession without due process of law. Scrutinizing the evidence, the court found that the plaintiff’s case suffered from serious contradictions; the witnesses gave varying accounts, and no reliable documentary evidence was produced to establish possession on 13 January 1989. The trial court had ignored these flaws and based its decision on mere conjecture. The findings were held to be perverse and unsustainable. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned judgment and decree, and dismissed the suit with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 6 - Possession and Dispossession - Plaintiff must establish actual possession and forcible dispossession without due process of law; mere assertion insufficient - Contradictory evidence and lack of reliable documentary proof such as electricity bills or rent receipts failed to establish possession; the trial court overlooked material discrepancies and unreasonably accepted the plaintiff's version - Held that the trial court's finding of possession was perverse and the suit was liable to be dismissed (Paras 15-18). B) Constitution of India, Article 227 - Supervisory Jurisdiction - High Court can interfere with lower court's findings of fact if they are perverse or based on no evidence - The trial court ignored the plaintiff's own inconsistent evidence and the defendant's possession; no reasonable person could have concluded the plaintiff was in possession on the disputed date - Held that interference under Article 227 was warranted to correct gross error of law and fact (Paras 19-21). C) Evidence - Burden of Proof in Possessory Suits - In a suit under Section 6, the plaintiff bears the burden to prove possession and dispossession; contradictory testimony of witnesses and absence of corroborative documentary evidence is fatal - The plaintiff's witnesses contradicted each other on material aspects; no independent proof of possession was produced; the trial court's acceptance of such evidence was perverse (Paras 16-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff proved possession of the suit flat on the date of alleged dispossession and whether the trial court's findings were perverse, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.07.1999 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay in Short Cause Suit No. 3733/1992, and dismissed the suit. The court held that the plaintiff had miserably failed to prove possession and dispossession, and the trial court's findings were perverse and based on no evidence.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- In a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- the plaintiff must prove possession at the time of alleged dispossession and forcible dispossession without due process of law
- burden of proof lies on the plaintiff
- contradictory oral testimony and absence of documentary evidence renders the case unproven
- findings of fact can be interfered under Article 227 of the Constitution if perverse or based on no evidence
