Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V.MARNE
Jayashree Jaisingh Babar – Appellant
Versus
Shirish Ramdas Sarode – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. sec 6 suit improper for developer-purchaser payment disputes. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. sale agreement dispute over payment and possession timing. (Para 3 , 4 , 28 , 29) |
| 3. composite reliefs make sec 6 suit non-maintainable. (Para 5) |
| 4. dispossession findings valid; compensation severable from possession. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. sec 6 limits summary enquiry to possession and dispossession. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. injunction and damages prayers exceed sec 6 scope. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. payment and title enquiry impermissible in sec 6 suit. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 8. developer lacks animus possidendi for settled possession claim. (Para 27 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 9. jurisdictional error overrides merits and res judicata. (Para 36) |
| 10. revision succeeds; suit dismissed with title suit liberty. (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
1) Whether a developer can file a Suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Specific Relief Act) for recovery of possession of flat sold to a purchaser on the ground that full consideration therefor is not paid and the possession thereof is illegally obtained? Is the summary remedy under of t
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 ....
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.
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 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....
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....
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....
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
