Bombay High Court Allows Civil Revision in Suit for Possession Under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act — Trial Court Erred in Decreeing Suit Without Proper Consideration of Evidence. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove possession and wrongful dispossession, setting aside the decree and dismissing the suit.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a civil revision application filed by the original defendant challenging the judgment and order dated 18.3.2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Maregaon, decreeing Regular Civil Suit No.34 of 2009 filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The suit was for recovery of possession based on alleged dispossession. The trial court decreed the suit, leading to the revision. The High Court admitted the matter and heard it finally by consent. The court examined the evidence and found that the trial court had not properly appreciated the evidence regarding possession and dispossession. The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession within six months prior to the suit and that the dispossession was wrongful. Consequently, the revision was allowed, the trial court's decree was set aside, and the suit was dismissed.

Headnote

A) Specific Relief Act - Suit for Possession under Section 6 - Summary Nature - Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides a summary remedy for recovery of possession based on prior possession and wrongful dispossession, without going into the question of title. The court must be satisfied that the plaintiff was in possession and was dispossessed without his consent and otherwise than in due course of law. (Paras 1-3)

B) Evidence - Possession and Dispossession - Burden of Proof - In a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the plaintiff must prove his possession within six months prior to the suit and that he was dispossessed by the defendant. The trial court's finding that the plaintiff was in possession and was dispossessed was based on insufficient evidence and was liable to be set aside. (Paras 4-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, without properly appreciating the evidence on record regarding possession and dispossession.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The civil revision application is allowed. The judgment and order dated 18.3.2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Maregaon in Regular Civil Suit No.34 of 2009 is set aside. The suit stands dismissed.

Law Points

  • Specific Relief Act
  • Section 6
  • Suit for Possession
  • Summary Suit
  • Title Not Relevant
  • Possessory Title
  • Dispossession Without Consent
  • Limitation
  • Burden of Proof
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011 LawText (BOM) (08) 131

Civil Revision Application No.62 of 2011

2011-08-02

R. K. Deshpande, J.

Shri M.P. Khajanchi for Applicant/Original Defendant, Shri S.Y. Deopujari for Respondent Sole

Kishore s/o Deorao Deshpande

Sarang s/o Padmakar Patil

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil revision application challenging decree in suit for possession under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act

Remedy Sought

Setting aside of the trial court's decree and dismissal of the suit

Filing Reason

The trial court decreed the suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, which the defendant challenged as being based on improper appreciation of evidence

Previous Decisions

Trial court decreed Regular Civil Suit No.34 of 2009 on 18.3.2011

Issues

Whether the trial court correctly decreed the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 Whether the plaintiff proved possession and wrongful dispossession within the meaning of Section 6

Submissions/Arguments

The applicant/defendant argued that the trial court erred in decreeing the suit without proper evidence of possession and dispossession The respondent/plaintiff supported the trial court's decree

Ratio Decidendi

In a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the plaintiff must prove his possession within six months prior to the suit and that he was dispossessed without his consent and otherwise than in due course of law. The trial court's finding of possession and dispossession was not supported by sufficient evidence, hence the decree was set aside.

Judgment Excerpts

This civil revision application challenges the judgment and order dated 18.3.2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Maregaon, decreeing the Regular Civil Suit No.34 of 2009, filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

Procedural History

The respondent/plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.34 of 2009 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which was decreed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Maregaon on 18.3.2011. The applicant/defendant filed Civil Revision Application No.62 of 2011 in the High Court, which was admitted on 21.6.2011 and heard finally by consent on 2.8.2011.

Acts & Sections

  • Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 6
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Civil Revision in Suit for Possession Under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act — Trial Court Erred in Decreeing Suit Without Proper Consideration of Evidence. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove possession and w...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeals in Motor Accident Claim Cases Due to Erroneous Application of Contributory Negligence. Claim petitions under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 dismissed by Tribunal and High Court on ground of contributory negligenc...