Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Civil Revision Application filed by the original defendants (Smita Prakash Chikhale and Sunita Dharnidhar Chikhale) against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai, decreeing Short Cause Suit No.2182 of 2012 filed by the plaintiff (Gajanan Yashwant Khatu) under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The plaintiff claimed that he was in possession of a shop premises since 1990-1991, having started a typewriting business there with the permission of Dharnidhar Chikhale, the original owner. After Dharnidhar's death in 1994, the plaintiff continued in possession. On 16.11.2011, the defendants, who are the legal heirs of Dharnidhar, allegedly dispossessed the plaintiff by force. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking restoration of possession. The trial court decreed the suit, directing the defendants to hand over vacant possession. The defendants challenged this decree in revision. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the plaintiff had proved his prior possession through his testimony and documents such as the shop license and electricity bills. The court held that the suit under Section 6 is a summary remedy based on prior possession alone, and title is irrelevant. The defendants' claim of ownership did not defeat the suit. The court also noted that the defendants did not file any written statement or lead evidence to rebut the plaintiff's case. The High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the trial court's decree. The court emphasized that the plaintiff was in settled possession and was dispossessed without due process of law, and therefore, he was entitled to restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Suit for Possession under Section 6 - Prior Possession - The suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is a summary proceeding based on prior possession alone, where title is irrelevant. The plaintiff must prove that he was in possession of the suit property and was dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law. In the present case, the plaintiff proved his possession since 1990-1991 and dispossession on 16.11.2011 by the defendants. The trial court decreed the suit, and the High Court upheld the decree, holding that the plaintiff's possession was settled and the defendants dispossessed him without following legal process. (Paras 1-24) B) Specific Relief Act - Section 6 - Maintainability against True Owner - A suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is maintainable even against the true owner if the plaintiff was in settled possession and was dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law. The court cannot go into the question of title in such a suit. The defendants' claim of ownership was irrelevant for the purpose of Section 6. The High Court affirmed that the plaintiff's prior possession was sufficient to maintain the suit. (Paras 15-24) C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Prior Possession - In a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove his prior possession and dispossession. The plaintiff must adduce credible evidence to establish possession. In this case, the plaintiff's testimony and documentary evidence, including the shop license and electricity bills, proved his possession. The defendants failed to rebut the evidence. (Paras 10-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was maintainable and whether the plaintiff proved his prior possession and dispossession by the defendants without due process of law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the decree of the City Civil Court, Mumbai dated 31.03.2015, which directed the defendants to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff.
Law Points
- Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- prior possession
- settled possession
- dispossession without due process of law
- summary suit
- title irrelevant
- possession is nine points of law
- maintainability against true owner
