Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
Smt.Ranjana, w/o. Ravindra Mendhe and Anr. – Applicants
Versus
Shri Kishor Baburao Dakhode and Anr. – Respondents
Civil Revision Application No.93 Of 2019
Decided On : 03-03-2025
(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 6 - Revision application challenging dismissal of suit for possession - Plaintiffs claimed illegal dispossession by defendants from property bequeathed by deceased owner - Court found plaintiffs failed to prove dispossession, emphasizing summary nature of proceedings under Section 6 - Plaintiffs' evidence contradicted by their own documents. (Paras 1, 5, 16, 20)
(B) Possession and Dispossession - The court reiterated that in a suit under Section 6, the primary issue is whether the plaintiff was in possession within six months prior to filing the suit, without delving into title disputes. (Paras 9, 16)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, husband and wife, filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act claiming illegal dispossession by the defendants from property originally owned by Narayan Ramaji Wakekar, who had executed a Will dividing the property between the parties. The plaintiffs alleged dispossession on 15.10.2012, but evidence indicated they were not residing in the property at that time. (Paras 2, 3, 12)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs did not prove their dispossession and that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish their claim under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. (Paras 5, 20)
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property and whether they were unlawfully dispossessed by the defendants. (Paras 7, 9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish their possession and dispossession, and reiterated that a suit under Section 6 is summary in nature, focusing solely on possession rather than title. (Paras 16, 20)
Result: Revision dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present revision application is filed challenging judgment and decree dated 13.9.2017 passed by learned 27th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No.5017/2012 by which the suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is dismissed.
2. The applicants herein are original plaintiffs who filed the suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and for occupation charges for illegal use of the property. The suit property involved in the suit is plot No.156 having Corporation House No.500, City Survey No.1, Sheet No.327/246, and 144 admeasuring 1080 square feet bounded as towards East - house of Shri Dongre, towards West - house of Shri Prabhu Chavan, towards North - house of Shri Shankar Moharle, and towards South - Road and ground.
3. The plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are also husband and wife. The suit property is originally owned by Narayan Ramaji Wakekar who died issueless. Deceased Narayan Ramaji Wakekar obtained the suit property from the NIT on lease and constructed the house on the suit property. Deceased Narayan Ramaji Wakekar during his life time, initially, executed a Will dated 23.11.2011 which was subsequently revoked by him by executing another Will dated 1.8.2012 by which the house property was divided between the plaintiffs and the defendants. In view of the said Will, half portion of the house property was given to the plaintiffs and half portion was given to the defendants. As per contentions of the plaintiffs, they were already in occupation and possession of the property. However, 15.10.2012, when they were out of station, the defendants broke the lock and entered into the premises and obtained illegal possession of the suit property. The entire household articles belonging to the plaintiffs and deceased Narayan Ramaji Wakekar were in the suit property. The plaintiffs got knowledge about possession taken by the defendants on 22.10.2012. Initially, the plaintiffs requested the defendants to hand over the possession, but the defendants have not paid any heed towards it. Therefore, the plaintiffs issued notice on 23.10.2012 asking the defendants to open the lock and hand over the possession of the suit property. After receipt of the notice also, the defendants have not handed over the possession and, therefore, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit.
4. In response to the suit summons, the defendants contested the suit by filing his written statement vide Exh.10. The contents of the plaint are admitted only to the extent that deceased Narayan Ramaji Wakekar executed a Will and partitioned the property. As per the contentions of the defendants, deceased Narayan Ramaji Wakekar was residing in old constructed portion and the new constructed portion was given by him on a rent. After the death of wife of deceased Narayan Ramaji Wakekar, the defendants started residing with deceased Narayan Ramaji Wakekar. Defendant No.1 has also performed all banking transactions on behalf of deceased Narayan Ramaji Wakekar. Deceased Narayan Ramaji Wakekar executed a Will dated 28.11.2011. The said Will was opened on 14.10.2012. As per the terms and conditions of the said Will, the possession of one backside room and one room of pakka construction were given to the plaintiff No.1 and possession of two rooms of old construction was given to the defendant No.2. Accordingly, both beneficiaries occupied their respective possession. Since then, the plaintiffs shifted their residence in the pakka constructed portion of the house, whereas the defendants are residing in old constructed rooms and the panchas confirmed their possession. The defendants have denied that they have obtained any possession of the premises which is given to the plaintiffs. It is contended by the defendants that the plaintiffs were in possession of the entire suit property and the possession of the plaintiffs was only to the extent of two rooms o
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....
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.
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 judgment emphasizes the limitations of revisional jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and the protection of symbolic or constructive possession.
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....
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.
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
