1. Suit under Section 6, Specific Relief Act — restoration of joint possession — forcible dispossession. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 201
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B P Jeevan Reddy, S B Majmudar
AMRISH KILACHAND AND ANOTHER, APPELLANTS
VERSUS
INDIAN COMMERCIAL CO. AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeal No. 685 of 1997 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1291 of 1997), decided on February 5, 1997.
Important Points
The Court addressed interim relief in a suit for restoration of joint possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, ruling that where prima facie forcible dispossession is found, the court may order carving out a portion of the premises or appointing a receiver to maintain the status quo.
Subject
Civil Law - Interlocutory Orders
Act Referred
Headnote
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Order XL, Rule 1 - Specific Relief Act – Section 6 – Suit for premises – Relief - Suit on expeditious - Plaintiff filed a suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act alleging that he was in joint possession along with defendant of the suit premises and that during his absence from country he was dispossessed from said joint possession - He prayed for restoration of joint possession - In said suit he took out a Notice of Motion asking for several reliefs including the following relief - Pending hearing and final disposal of the suit, Court Receiver, High Court be appointed Receiver of said premises with all powers under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 including a direction to put plaintiffs in possession of said premises on such terms and conditions as this Honble Court deems fit and proper – Held, If it is found that such a course is not feasible or possible, having regard to layout of the premises, then learned Single Judge shall a appoint a Court Receiver, High Court, as Receiver of said premises and defendant shall be in possession of premises as agent of such Receiver - Defendant shall not change status quo obtaining as on today with respect to nature of the said premise - Learned Single Judge shall consider and dispose of suit on expeditious basis within a period of three months, as far as possible, of receipt of copy of order - Order is passed without prejudice and without affecting orders already made in this suit - Appeal is disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Request for appointment of a Court Receiver to restore joint possession pending final disposal of the suit. (Para 2 )
3. Restoring joint possession at an interlocutory stage may amount to decreeing the suit, despite a prima facie finding of forcible dispossession. (Para 3 )
4. Interlocutory relief for possession should avoid prematurely decreeing the suit, potentially utilizing partial possession or receivership to maintain the status quo. (Para 3 , 6 )
5. Directed appointment of a Commissioner to carve out a portion for the plaintiff or, alternatively, appointment of a Court Receiver. (Para 6 )
6. Does restoring joint possession at an interlocutory stage constitute decreeing the suit?
Yes, the court observed that putting a plaintiff back in joint possession at an interlocutory stage could amount to decreeing the suit before the final hearing. (Para 3 )
7. What alternative measures can be taken when full restoration of possession is not feasible at an interlocutory stage?
The court may appoint a Commissioner to determine if a separate portion of the premises can be carved out for the plaintiff or appoint a Court Receiver to manage the property. (Para 6 )
8. How is possession managed when a Court Receiver is appointed but the defendant remains in the premises?
The defendant may continue in possession of the premises acting as the agent of the Court Receiver, subject to maintaining the status quo of the premises. (Para 6 )
ORDER
1. Though this special leave petition is preferred against an interlocutory order, we are inclined to entertain it having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act alleging that he was in joint possession along with the defendant of the suit premises and that during his absence from the country he was dispossessed from the said joint possession on 8-5-1996. He prayed for restoration of the joint possession. In the said suit he took out a Notice of Motion asking for several reliefs including the following relief :
"Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay be appointed Receiver of the said premises with all powers under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 including a direction to put the plaintiffs in possession of the said premises on such terms and conditions as this Honble Court deems fit and proper."
3. The learned Single Judge, however, rejected the said Notice of Motion observing inter alia, that appointment of receiver would result in dispossession of the defendant who is, even according to the plaintiffs case, in possession of the premises now. He also opined that at this stage of the suit, the plaintiff cannot be put hack in joint possession since that would amount to decreeing his suit at this interlocutory stage itself. However, the learned Single Judge recorded a clear prima facie finding in his order that until 8-5-1996, the plaintiff was indeed in joint possession of the said premises along with the defendant and that the plaintiff has been dispossessed from such joint possession forcibly.
4. The plaintiff has come forward with this special leave petition against the said order.
5. Leave granted.
6. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties at some length, we think that the following order would be eminently appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.
1. The learned Single Judge shall appoint a Commissioner to ascertain whether it is possible to carve out a portion out of the said premises - portion being less than half the area of the premises in question - and if it is possible to carve out a separate portion with separate access, he shall direct it to be done and place such carved out portion in possession of the plaintiff. This will be an arrangement pending the suit and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties of the suit.
2. If it is found that such a course is not feasible or possible, having regard to the layout of the premises, then the learned Single Judge shall a appoint a Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, as the Receiver of the said premises and the defendant shall be in possession of the premises as the agent of such Receiver. The defendant shall not change the status quo obtaining as on today with respect to the nature of the said premises. The learned Single Judge shall consider and dispose of the suit on expeditious basis within a period of three months, as far as possible, of the receipt of the copy of the order.
3. This order is passed without prejudice and without affecting the orders already made in this suit.
7. The appeal is disposed of with above directions. No costs.
