Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
Ranjana, w/o. Ravindra Mendhe – Appellant
Versus
Kishor Baburao Dakhode – Respondent
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, exe
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.
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....
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
