Case Note & Summary
The appellants, owners of a property, had given it to the respondent under a leave and licence agreement. The appellants allegedly illegally, unauthorizedly and by use of force evicted the respondent. Within six months of dispossession, the respondent filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking possession based on prior possession. The Trial Court decreed the suit, disbelieving the appellants' contention of voluntary handover of possession based on a possession receipt, and rejecting the plea that the suit was not maintainable under Section 6. The appellants filed a revision before the High Court, which dismissed it, concurring with the Trial Court's findings on illegal dispossession and maintainability. The Supreme Court, hearing the appeal, noted that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence should not be interfered with. The Court also observed that no settlement application was filed despite being given time. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Section 6 Suit - Maintainability - Suit for possession based on previous possession - The suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is maintainable even if the defendant claims title, as it is a summary remedy based on prior possession and illegal dispossession within six months. The court rejected the appellant's plea that the suit was not maintainable. (Paras 2-3) B) Specific Relief Act - Section 6 - Illegal Dispossession - Evidence - Concurrent findings of fact regarding illegal dispossession by force, without consent, based on evidence on record, cannot be re-agitated in appeal. The Trial Court and High Court both found that the appellants illegally, unauthorizedly and by use of force evicted the respondent, and the possession receipt was disbelieved. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was maintainable and whether the appellants had illegally dispossessed the respondent.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court that the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was maintainable and that the appellants had illegally dispossessed the respondent.
Law Points
- Section 6 of Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Suit for possession based on previous possession
- Summary remedy for dispossession without consent
- Maintainability of suit under Section 6
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with in appeal
