Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging a judgment of the City Civil Court in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The suit was decreed in favor of the respondent (original plaintiff), who was held entitled to restoration of possession of a stall measuring 4' x 5' situated at Chimna Butcher Street, Null Bazar, Mumbai. The petitioner (original defendant) is the son of the original owner of the premises. The respondent claimed that he was inducted as a licensee in 1960 and carried on business independently for 45 years, paying a licence fee. After the death of the original owner and his widow, the petitioner allegedly took a security deposit of Rs.50,000 and increased the licence fee. The petitioner contended that the respondent was an employee and that a Nokarnama was executed, and that the respondent was allowed to conduct business on a monthly royalty basis from February to December 1995. The trial court decreed the suit, finding that the respondent was in possession and was dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law. The High Court, in revision, upheld the decree, holding that a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is based on prior possession and not title, and the defendant cannot raise the question of title. The court found that the respondent had proved prior possession and dispossession, and the suit was within limitation. The revision application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 6 - Suit for Possession - Prior Possession - A suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is maintainable for recovery of possession based on prior possession alone, without proof of title. The plaintiff must prove that he was in possession and was dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law. The defendant cannot raise the question of title in such a suit. (Paras 1-3) B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 6 - Limitation - Suit must be filed within six months of dispossession. The court found that the suit was filed within the prescribed period of limitation. (Para 2) C) Evidence - Possession - Long Possession - The plaintiff's long possession of 45 years as a licensee was sufficient to maintain a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The court upheld the trial court's finding that the plaintiff was in possession and was dispossessed. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for recovery of possession is maintainable when the plaintiff proves prior possession and forcible dispossession, and whether the defendant can raise the question of title in such a suit.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application and upheld the decree of the trial court, holding that the respondent was entitled to restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Law Points
- Suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act
- 1963 is based on prior possession
- not title
- defendant cannot raise title defense
- possession must be proved
- limitation of six months
- summary nature of remedy
