High Court Dismisses Revision Application in Possession Dispute - Applicant Challenge to Decree Under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act Fails - Trial Court's Order Restoring Possession Upheld

Sub Category: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY

Admin

2026-03-01 01:23:38

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application filed by the Applicant-Defendant challenging the Trial Court's decree in Special Civil Suit No.218 of 2016 -- The Trial Court had directed restoration of possession under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- The Court found that the Plaintiffs established dispossession on 14 February 2016 when the Defendant broke open the lock of the bungalow -- The Defendant's claim of continuous possession for decades was not accepted as he was admitted to be residing only in an outhouse as watchman -- The Plaintiffs maintained possession of the main bungalow -- The evidence supported the Trial Court's findings -- The Revision Application was dismissed as no jurisdictional error was found in the impugned judgment

Headnote

The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application challenging the Trial Court's decree under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- The Court held that the Plaintiffs established dispossession without consent on 14 February 2016 -- The Defendant's admission of being appointed as watchman and residing in outhouse did not negate Plaintiffs' possession of main bungalow -- Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides summary remedy for restoration of possession when dispossession is proved -- The Trial Court's findings based on evidence were not perverse or illegal -- Revision jurisdiction under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requires jurisdictional error -- No such error was found in the impugned judgment

Premium Content

The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.

Subscribe Now to access key legal points

Issue of Consideration: The Issue of Consideration was whether the Trial Court erred in decreeing the suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 when the Defendant claimed continuous possession for decades

Premium Content

The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.

Subscribe Now to access critical case issues

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application -- The Trial Court's Judgment and Order dated 21 May 2022 was upheld -- The Defendant was directed to restore possession of suit property to Plaintiffs -- No interference was warranted under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 126

Civil Revision Application No. 365 of 2023

2026-02-27

Sandeep V. Marne J.

2026:BHC-AS:10243

Mr. Ajinkya J. Jaibhave for Applicant, Mr. Vikram A. Sathaye i/b. Mr. Hrishikesh Shinde for Respondents

Ashok Kacharu Gaikwad

Rev. Samuel Shankar Chandekar (deceased) through his legal heirs 1A Smt. Nirmalabai Samuel Chandekar and Ors.

Premium Content

The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.

Subscribe Now to access critical case indexes

Nature of Litigation: Civil Revision Application challenging Trial Court decree in possession suit

Remedy Sought

Applicant-Defendant sought setting aside of Trial Court's decree and dismissal of suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963

Filing Reason

Challenge to Judgment and Order dated 21 May 2022 passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik decreeing Special Civil Suit No.218 of 2016

Previous Decisions

Trial Court decreed suit on 21 May 2022 directing Defendant to restore possession of suit property to Plaintiffs under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963

Issues

Whether the Trial Court erred in decreeing the suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 when Defendant claimed continuous possession for decades Whether Plaintiffs established dispossession without consent as required under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963

Submissions/Arguments

Defendant's counsel argued that Defendant and his father possessed suit property for over 50 years -- Plaint contained admission of Defendant's induction -- Defendant's family resided in bungalow for decades -- Plaintiffs failed to establish settled possession as required under Section 6 -- Story of dispossession on 14 February 2016 was imaginary Respondents' counsel argued that Plaintiffs established dispossession on 14 February 2016 -- Defendant was only watchman residing in outhouse -- Plaintiffs maintained possession of main bungalow -- Evidence supported Trial Court's findings

Ratio Decidendi

Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides summary remedy for restoration of possession when dispossession without consent is proved -- Admission of Defendant residing in outhouse as watchman does not negate Plaintiffs' possession of main property -- Trial Court's findings based on evidence were not perverse -- Revision jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC requires jurisdictional error which was not established

Judgment Excerpts

The Applicant has preferred the present Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the Judgment and Order dated 21 May 2022 The Suit was originally instituted by Rev. Samuel Shankar Chandekar and another under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking restoration of the possession Mr. Jaibhave would submit that the first essential ingredient of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act of Plaintiffs being in settled possession of the suit property is not established The Plaintiffs came with a imaginary story of being dispossessed from the suit property on 14 February 2016

Procedural History

Special Civil Suit No.218 of 2016 instituted on 9 February 2021 -- Trial Court decreed suit on 21 May 2022 -- Civil Revision Application No.365 of 2023 filed on 18 July 2023 -- High Court reserved judgment on 11 February 2026 -- Judgment pronounced on 27 February 2026