Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sudhakar Suryabhan Mankar, filed a Civil Revision Application before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur against the dismissal of his suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ghatanji. The petitioner claimed to be the owner and in possession of land Gat No.29 admeasuring 1.21 HR situated at Zatala, Tah. Ghatanji, which was allegedly gifted to him by Bhudan Yagna Mandal, Nagpur on 23.09.2001 and again allotted on 01.08.2005. He alleged that on 14.01.2010, when he went to the land for measurement, the respondents forcibly dispossessed him. He complained to the President of Tanta Mukti but was advised not to file a police report. On 03.04.2010, he filed the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the petitioner failed to prove his possession and dispossession within six months. The High Court, in revision, examined the evidence and found that the petitioner's witnesses did not support his case, and the documentary evidence was insufficient. The court held that the trial court's findings were based on evidence and were not perverse, and therefore, no interference was warranted under Section 115 CPC. The revision was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 6 - Suit for Possession Based on Previous Possession - Limitation - The suit under Section 6 must be filed within six months of dispossession. The plaintiff must prove that he was in possession and was dispossessed within that period. In the present case, the petitioner claimed dispossession on 14.01.2010 but filed suit on 03.04.2010, which is within six months. However, the trial court found that the petitioner failed to prove his possession and dispossession. The High Court upheld the dismissal, noting that the petitioner's own witnesses did not support his case and the documentary evidence was insufficient. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 115 - Revision - Scope - The revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors. The High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the trial court's findings are perverse or based on no evidence. In this case, the trial court's findings were based on evidence and were not perverse, hence no interference was warranted. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner proved that he was in possession of the suit land and was dispossessed by the respondents within six months prior to the filing of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the trial court's judgment and order dated 28.03.2014. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 6 of Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Suit for possession based on previous possession
- Limitation of six months
- Burden of proof on plaintiff to prove dispossession within six months
- Revision under Section 115 CPC
