Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V.MARNE
Khandu Bajaba Gawande (since deceased through legal heirs) – Appellant
Versus
Deoram Bajaba Gawande (since deceased through legal heirs) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
1) Revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code) is invoked for assailing the judgment and order dated 9 December 2022 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Bombay in S.C. Suit No. 3192/2012. The Suit is decreed directing the Applicants to restore possession of suit premises to the Plaintiffs and the Applicants are restrained from dispossessing the Plaintiffs from the suit premises without following due process of law and from disturbing their possession.
2) The case of the Plaintiffs, as pleaded in the plaint, is that Plaintiff No.1 was working with Food Corporation of India Limited and he purchased two premises in the year 1972-73 viz. i) Unit No. 219/8559 for residential purposes and ii) Unit No. 198/7796 for dispensary purposes, both at Kannamwar Nagar No. II, Vikhroli East, Mumbai –400083.
3) Plaintiff No.1 claims himself to be a doctor with qualification of Ayurved Vaidya Visharad and it is claimed that he commenced his dispensary from premises bearing No. 198/7796, which formed the ‘suit premises’. The Defendant is the brother of Plaintiff No.1 and according to Plaintiff No.1,
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....
(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.
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.
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
