Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Sanjay Maruti Jadhav & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Amit Tatoba Sawant – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2012
Decided On : 26-04-2024
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 6 – Recovery of possession of property – Within six months of dispossession, respondent filed suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Trial Court decreed suit after disbelieving contentions raised by appellants regarding voluntary handover of possession, relying upon a possession receipt – Appellant’s plea regarding suit being not maintainable under Section 6 of Act was also rejected – Revision has since been dismissed by High Court by impugned order – High Court concurred with finding recorded by Trial Court regarding illegal dispossession of respondent – Concurrent findings, based upon evidence on record and also being findings of fact, appeal accordingly dismissed. (Paras 2, 3 and 4)
Facts of the case:
Appellants are the owners of the property in question. Under the leave and licence agreement, property in question was given to the respondent. However, the appellants are alleged to have illegally, unauthorizedly and by use of force, evicted respondent.
Findings of Court:
Such concurrent findings, based upon the evidence on record and also being findings of fact, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Vikram Nath, J.
1. In this case, orders were reserved on 18.01.2024, leaving it open for the parties to move an appropriate application within two weeks, in case any settlement is arrived at. More than three months have passed; however, no such application has been filed. We are thus proceeding to decide the matter on its merits.
2. The appellants are the owners of the property in question. Under the leave and licence agreement, the property in question was given to the respondent. However, the appellants are alleged to have 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, 19631[Act, 1963]. The Trial Court decreed the suit after disbelieving the contentions raised by the appellants regarding voluntary handover of possession, relying upon a possession receipt. The appellant’s plea regarding the suit being not maintainable under Section 6 of the Act was also rejected.
3. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred a revision before the High Court, which has since been dismissed by the impugned order. The High Court also found that the plea of maintainability of the suit raised by the appellant was without any merit and further concurred with the finding recorded by the Trial Court regarding the illegal dispossession of the respondent.
4. Such concurrent findings, based upon the evidence on record and also being findings of fact, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
5. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
Recovery of possession of property – Illegal usurper of property can be legally evicted therefrom under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963.
The court established that the expiration of a license does not negate the right to seek restoration of possession under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, and illegal dispossession cannot be condone....
The court ruled that a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act requires proof of dispossession within six months, and the limitation period begins from the date of dispossession, not from the....
Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, courts can only adjudicate possession issues and not title disputes in cases of dispossession within six months.
Plaintiff must prove prior possession within six months of dispossession under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act; mere claims without credible evidence of personal knowledge are insufficient.
The court reaffirmed that in suits under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the focus is solely on possession and unlawful dispossession, not on the title of the property.
An appeal or review is not maintainable against any order or decree passed in a summary suit for recovery of possession instituted under the specific statutory provision, as the law explicitly bars s....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that suits for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Act of 1963 must be filed within six months of dispossession, and the title of the par....
In a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the focus is solely on possession and dispossession, not on title, and plaintiffs must prove they were in possession within six months prior to f....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
