Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V.MARNE
Ashok Kacharu Gaikwad – Appellant
Versus
Rev. Samuel Shankar Chandekar (deceased) through his legal heirs 1A Smt. Nirmalabai Samuel Chandekar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision challenges trial decree under section 6 specific relief act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. plaintiffs' long possession; defendant watchman commits 2016 trespass. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. trial court decrees suit post-evidence; revision stayed. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. defendant claims decades-long settled possession via documents. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. watchman occupation permissive, not settled possession. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. section 6 mandates summary enquiry into possession and dispossession. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. repair evidence proves plaintiffs' possession; defendant mere caretaker. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. caretaker's long occupation not settled possession against owner. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 9. title irrelevant; revision dismissed, vacation time granted. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
1) The Applicant has preferred the present Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) challenging the Judgment and Order dated 21 May 2022 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik, decreeing Special Civil Suit No.218 of 2016 and directing the Applicant/Defendant to restore possession
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 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.
Section 6 Specific Relief Act suits are summary for possession restoration only; composite suits with injunction, compensation, or title/payment disputes between developer and purchaser exceed scope ....
Possession and temporary injunction claims under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, providing summary protection against unlawful dispossession, established by continuous occupation even in absenc....
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.
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
