Back
C. M. POONACHA
Satish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Srinivas – Respondent
ORDER :
C.M.Poonacha, J.
The above Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 r/w Order 44, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC) challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 28.02.2017 passed in O.S. No.17/2008 by the Senior Civil Judge, Sedam wherein the suit filed by the Plaintiff under Section 6 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963 has been dismissed with costs.
2. The parties are referred to as per the rank before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the father of the Plaintiff purchased plot No.1, Municipal No.2 - 5- 101 situated on Cinema Road at Sedam (hereinafter referred to as 'larger property') for a consideration of Rs.5,000/- in the name of his wife Smt.Gayatridevi vide registered Sale Deed dated 26.5.1971. That father of the Plaintiff was the elder brother of the Defendant No.1 and that when their father namely Shri. Kashinath Rao died in the year 1963, the Defendant No.1 was studying and the father of the Plaintiff was practicing Advocate. That after the death of the said Shri.Kashinath Rao, the father of the Plaintiff helped the Defendant No.1 in completing his Education and getting a job at the first inst
In Section 6 Specific Relief Act suit, plaintiff must prove settled possession on exact dispossession date against specific defence of third-party prior occupation; trial court's perverse ignorance o....
Watchman or caretaker's occupation of outhouse does not constitute settled possession of entire property under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; plaintiffs' prior possession proved by repair works entit....
The court ruled that while unlawful dispossession was established, the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit on technicalities violated the substantive rights under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
A plaintiff can recover possession of immovable property if they prove prior possession and unlawful dispossession, even without establishing ownership under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
(1) There is a difference between concept of ‘possession’ and ‘mere presence in property’.(2) Test of proving possession cannot be different for Plaintiff seeking injunction against defendant to prot....
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.
Court confirmed that possession, established without due process, warrants restoration under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, irrespective of ownership documents, which do not confer automatic r....
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
