Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by the defendant (Ramnath Magdum Yadav) against the decree passed by the City Civil Judge at Mumbai in S.C. Suit No.6048 of 1979, which decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff (Shivshankar Mahadeo Shukla) under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The suit property was a tenanted premises admeasuring 35' x 25', part of a larger premises on Survey No.51, Hissa No.11, Mahakali, Mulgaon village, Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai. The plaintiff claimed that he used the suit premises as a stable from 1963 on rental basis from its owner Mr. B. Nunes and was in continuous possession till 4-4-1979, when he was illegally and fraudulently dispossessed by the defendant misusing an order passed by the Executive Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in proceeding No.168 of 1975. The plaintiff had initiated the said proceeding alleging wrongful dispossession, and by order dated 16-5-1977, the Executive Magistrate directed the plaintiff to be put in possession. The defendant challenged that order in Criminal Revision Application No.250 of 1977, which was pending. The plaintiff filed the suit on 16-7-1979 for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff was in possession within six months prior to the suit and was dispossessed on 4-4-1979. The defendant filed the present revision. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession within six months prior to 4-4-1979. The court noted that the plaintiff's own witnesses admitted that the defendant was in possession since 1975. The order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. did not prove actual possession thereafter. The court held that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff did not establish the essential requirement of Section 6. The revision was allowed, the trial court's decree was set aside, and the suit was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 6 - Suit for Possession Based on Previous Possession - Limitation - The plaintiff must prove that he was in possession within six months prior to the date of dispossession. In this case, the plaintiff claimed dispossession on 4-4-1979 but the suit was filed on 16-7-1979, which is within six months. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession within six months prior to 4-4-1979, as the evidence showed that the defendant was in possession since 1975. The suit was dismissed as not maintainable. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Possession - The plaintiff relied on an order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. dated 16-5-1977 directing restoration of possession, but the court noted that such an order does not confer title and the plaintiff did not prove actual possession thereafter. The defendant's evidence of possession from 1975 was accepted. (Paras 5-9) C) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 3 - Suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act - The suit must be filed within six months from the date of dispossession. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove dispossession on 4-4-1979, and thus the suit was not within limitation. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property within six months prior to the alleged dispossession on 4-4-1979 and whether the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was maintainable and within limitation.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the civil revision application, set aside the decree passed by the City Civil Judge, and dismissed the suit with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 6 of Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Suit for possession based on previous possession
- Limitation for suit under Section 6
- Burden of proof on plaintiff to show possession within six months prior to dispossession
- Executive Magistrate's order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. does not confer title
