Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by the defendants (petitioners) against a decree passed by the 7th Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Pune, partly decreeing Regular Civil Suit No. 2751 of 1989. The suit was filed by the respondent (plaintiff) under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking recovery of possession of three rooms (suit property) allegedly occupied by him as part of his employment as a caretaker for the defendant trust. The plaintiff claimed that he was employed by Shri P.N. Rabade, the manager of defendant no.1 trust, on a monthly salary of Rs.900, and was allowed to use and occupy the suit rooms from 13th March 1980. After Rabade's death on 20th August 1987, defendant no.2 became the new manager. On 10th November 1989, when the plaintiff demanded unpaid salary from September 1987 to October 1989, defendant no.2 threatened eviction. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 19th November 1989 and subsequently filed the suit. The trial court partly decreed the suit, ordering the defendants to vacate and deliver peaceful possession of one verandah or suit room described in paragraph 1-A of the plaint within one month. The defendants challenged this decree in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the plaintiff had not proved his possession of the suit property within six months prior to the suit, as required under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The court noted that the plaintiff's own evidence was inconsistent and that the documentary evidence did not establish prior possession. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the trial court's decree, and dismissed the suit.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Suit for Possession under Section 6 - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff must prove that he was in possession of the suit property within six months prior to the date of the suit and that he was dispossessed without his consent - The court cannot adjudicate on title in such a summary suit - Held that the plaintiff failed to prove prior possession and the decree for possession was set aside (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff had proved his possession of the suit property within six months prior to the filing of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the civil revision application, set aside the decree passed by the 7th Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Pune, and dismissed Regular Civil Suit No. 2751 of 1989.
Law Points
- Section 6 of Specific Relief Act
- 1963 provides a summary remedy for recovery of possession based on prior possession
- not title
- the plaintiff must prove possession within six months prior to the suit
- the court cannot go into the question of title in such a suit
- the remedy under Section 6 is alternative to a suit based on title.
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 22
Civil Revision Application No. 955 of 1997
Mr. S.G. Page for the petitioners, Mr. S.B. Deshmukh i/b A.V. Anturkar for the respondent
Raja Mahendra Girji & ors.
Ramchandra Shivram Pednekar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision application against a decree in a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (defendants) sought to set aside the trial court's decree ordering them to vacate and deliver possession of the suit property.
Filing Reason
The trial court partly decreed the suit for possession, and the defendants challenged the decree on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove prior possession within six months.
Previous Decisions
The 7th Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Pune, partly decreed Regular Civil Suit No. 2751 of 1989 on 13th April 1997, ordering the defendants to vacate the suit property.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff proved his possession of the suit property within six months prior to the filing of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was in possession of the suit property within six months prior to the suit, as required under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
The respondent contended that the trial court correctly decreed the suit based on evidence of prior possession.
Ratio Decidendi
In a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the plaintiff must prove that he was in possession of the suit property within six months prior to the date of the suit and that he was dispossessed without his consent. The court cannot go into the question of title. The plaintiff failed to discharge this burden, and therefore the decree for possession was not sustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
This Revision Application filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure takes exception to the decree passed by the learned 7th Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Pune on 13th April 1997 thereby partly decreeing Regular Civil Suit no. 2751 of 1989.
The said suit was filed u/s.6 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 and the present appellants were impleaded as defendants and ordered to vacate peaceful possession of the verandah or suit room described in paragraph no.1-A of the plaint within one month of the date of the order.
Procedural History
The respondent (plaintiff) filed Regular Civil Suit No. 2751 of 1989 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking possession of suit property. The 7th Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Pune, partly decreed the suit on 13th April 1997. The defendants (petitioners) filed Civil Revision Application No. 955 of 1997 under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the decree. The High Court heard the revision and delivered judgment on 16th and 17th August 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 115
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: 6
