Case Note & Summary
The petitioner-original plaintiff filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for recovery of possession of a shop-cum-room, alleging that the respondent-defendant, who is a relative and a police constable, had forcibly and illegally dispossessed him on 07-10-2003 without due process of law. The petitioner claimed to be a monthly tenant since 09-09-1998, having constructed a shop on the leased plot and running a grocery business. He contended that the respondent, with the aid of police and relatives, threw his goods onto the street and locked the premises. Complaints were lodged with the Police Commissioner on 20-08-2003 and at the Cantonment Police Station on 07-10-2003, and a panchanama was conducted. The respondent, however, asserted that the possession was voluntarily surrendered due to rent arrears, as the parties had mutually agreed that the petitioner would vacate and the respondent would forgo outstanding rent. No documentary evidence of tenancy or rent payment was on record. The trial court, by judgment dated 14-10-2004, dismissed the suit, finding no forcible dispossession. The petitioner challenged this decision by way of the present civil revision application, arguing that the trial court's findings were perverse, ignored the contemporaneous complaints and panchanama, and that adverse inference should be drawn from the absence of a possession receipt. The respondent defended the trial court's decree, submitting that the petitioner's claim of ownership over the construction exceeded the summary scope of Section 6 proceedings, and that the evidence did not support forcible dispossession. The High Court heard arguments on both sides, but the text of the final order is not included in the provided extract, so the outcome of the revision is unknown.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court committed a material irregularity in dismissing the suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, by failing to properly consider evidence of alleged forcible dispossession on 07-10-2003, including contemporaneous complaints and panchanama, and by exceeding its jurisdiction by delving into questions of title.
Law Points
- Section 6 Specific Relief Act summary procedure
- dispossession without consent
- due process of law
- re-appreciation of evidence in revision
- adverse inference from non-production of possession receipt
- scope of inquiry under Section 6 limited to possession and not title
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (10) 38
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.228 OF 2004
Shri H.M. Karwa for petitioner; Shri A.P. Bhandari for Respondent
Ramesh s/o Madhavrao Shelke
Bhaskar s/o Seetaram Pradhan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for recovery of possession of immovable property under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, following alleged illegal and forcible dispossession.
Remedy Sought
The plaintiff sought a decree for possession of the suit shop-cum-room.
Filing Reason
The plaintiff alleged that on 07-10-2003, the defendant, a police constable, along with police personnel and relatives, forcibly threw his goods onto the street and locked the shop, dispossessing him without following due process of law, despite his tenancy since 1998 and regular rent payments.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (5th Joint C.J.J.D., Aurangabad) dismissed the suit with costs on 14-10-2004, finding insufficient evidence of forcible dispossession.
Issues
Whether the trial court committed a material irregularity in dismissing the suit by misappreciating the evidence of forcible dispossession, including contemporaneous complaints and panchanama.
Whether the trial court exceeded its summary jurisdiction under Section 6 by examining questions of title and ownership of the construction raised by the plaintiff.
Whether the absence of a documentary possession receipt (Taba Pawati) raised an adverse inference against the defendant's claim of voluntary surrender.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner/Plaintiff: The trial court's findings were perverse; the complaint dated 07-10-2003 and the panchanama conducted on the same day clearly showed forcible dispossession; the defendant, being a police constable, abused his position; no possession receipt was produced to prove voluntary surrender; the Supreme Court in S.R. Ejaz v. Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd., AIR 2002 SC 1152, emphasized that in such cases, facts are eloquent and no further evidence is necessary; the trial court travelled beyond the scope of Section 6 by making unwarranted findings on title.
Respondent/Defendant: The plaintiff's pleadings raised claims of ownership of the construction, which are beyond the summary scope of Section 6; the plaintiff failed to prove the complaint dated 20-08-2003; there was no documentary evidence of tenancy or rent payments; the parties are relatives and a mutual agreement was reached to vacate in lieu of rent arrears; the panchanama witness admitted there was no damage to articles; the trial court correctly dismissed the suit.
Judgment Excerpts
Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 what is required to inquire by summary proceeding is whether the person is dispossessed without his consent of the immovable property otherwise than in due course of law.
There is no appeal and review permitted against the decision of the trial Court and the revision is not prohibited by the legislation after the disposal of the suit in trial Court.
In absence of documentary evidence of the receipt of possession, it is clear case of the adverse inference against the defendant and it is confirmed that forcefully petitioner has been dispossessed on 7.10.2003.
The ownership of construction is further agitated. However, the same is beyond the scope of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
Procedural History
The petitioner-plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 774 of 2003 before the 5th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Aurangabad, seeking recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, alleging forcible dispossession on 07-10-2003. The trial court dismissed the suit with costs vide judgment dated 14-10-2004. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the instant Civil Revision Application No. 228 of 2004 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad.
Acts & Sections
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: 6, 6(4)
