Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE
Maharukh Mediomah Patel – Appellant
Versus
Ruksana Barodawala – Respondent
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
1) This is a classic case of a caretaker who had entered the property to take care of a senior citizen and has taken over possession, not just of the property of her care-seeker but has also grabbed the adjoining property of another lonely senior citizen taking disadvantage of his hospitalization. The City Civil Court has upheld the plea of unlawful dispossession in suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act,1963, but has declined to decree the suit by adopting a hyper-technical approach that the description of the suit property was not sufficient enough for passing ‘effective’ and ‘enforceable’ decree. Thus, despite succeeding in proving unlawful dispossession, the Plaintiff is denied the relief of restoration of possession resulting in the caretaker succeeding in grabbing even the adjoining property.
2) These are cross Revision Applications preferred against the judgment and order dated 21 September 2019 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court in SC suit No.783 of 2014. The Suit was filed by Plaintiff -Maharukh Patel under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for restoration of possession of the suit premises. The learned
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.
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....
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....
(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 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....
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.
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
