IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH PORT BLAIR
I.P. MUKERJI, J.
S.K. Ajijul – Petitioner
Versus
Mohd. Salim and Others – Respondents
CO No. 4 of 2023
Decided On : 11-12-2023
Specific Relief Act - Possession of Immovable Property - Court directs execution of decree for possession and damages, sets aside order preventing possession based on report of government land
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for wrongful dispossession and claimed possession of the property under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The suit was decreed, and the petitioner was able to realize damages but was prevented from obtaining possession due to a report that the property was government land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower court had erred in relying on the report of government land and directed immediate execution of the decree for possession and damages. The court set aside the order preventing possession and instructed the lower court to complete the execution proceedings within six weeks.
Issues: Wrongful dispossession, possession of immovable property, reliance on report of government land, execution of decree
Ratio Decidendi: Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act allows a plaintiff wrongfully dispossessed from immovable property to claim possession within six months of such dispossession, irrespective of any other title that can be set up in relation to the property. The court held that possession has to be returned to the party who was in possession before being illegally dispossessed.
Final Decision: The court directed the lower court to immediately execute the decree for possession and damages, set aside the order preventing possession based on the report of government land, and instructed the lower court to complete the execution proceedings within six weeks.
JUDGMENT :
I.P. MUKERJI, J.
1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.
2. At the outset I say that I have gone through, the various orders of this Court passed from time to time, between 15th February, 2023 and 22nd November, 2023.
3. None appears for the respondents or for the State Legal Services Authority or the State.
4. The petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit against the respondents in the learned court below, complaining of wrongful dispossession from the suit property and claiming back its possession from them, under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Claim for mesne profit was also made.
5. On 25th April, 2016, the suit was decreed directing the respondents to deliver peaceful possession of the suit property to the petitioner together with a decree for damages assessed at Rs. 10,000/- with the stipulation that the amount had to be paid and possession to be delivered within sixty days from that date failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to levy execution.
6. In execution, the petitioner was able to realize Rs.10,000/- from the respondents as recorded in the order of the executing court dated 24th November, 2022.
7. At the time of execution of the other part of the decree, the Nazir filed a report in the court that the property was government/revenue land and that in execution the property could not be handed over to the petitioner, as recorded in the order dated 23rd November, 2022.
8. Hence, this application challenging the said order dated 23rd November, 2022.
9. Section 6 of the Special Relief Act provides for a procedure by which the plaintiff wrongfully dispossessed from immovable property by the defendant can claim its possession within six months of such dispossession.
10. It arms the plaintiff with the right to recover possession thereof irrespective of the any other title that can be set up in relation to the said property. One who has been dispossessed from immovable property without due process of law, is allowed to recover possession thereof, irrespective of any other consideration.
11. Whatever may be the right title and interest of a party, he cannot by an illegal procedure take possession of an immovable property. Possession has to be returned back to one who was in possession thereof.
12. Here such kind of a decree has been passed.
13. The act of forcible dispossession of property claimed by the appellant is against the respondents and not against the government against which section 6 does not apply.
14. Therefore in my opinion the court below has committed a mistake by relying on the report of the Nazir. The court ought to have continued with the execution till possession was handed over to the petitioner who was found to be in possession before being illegally dispossessed by the respondents.
15. Therefore, this application is disposed by directing the learned court below to immediately execute the decree dated 24th April, 2016 in the manner aforesaid. Thereafter, on restoration of the status quo regarding the property, the government would be at liberty to exercise its right, if any, under the law.
16. I direct the court below to complete the execution proceedings by delivery of possession to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. The first part of the order dated 23rd November, 2022 is set aside.
AI
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act allows a plaintiff wrongfully dispossessed from immovable property to claim possession within six months of such dispossession, irrespective of any other title th....
Possession is the key issue in suits under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, and the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish prior lawful possession.
Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, courts can only adjudicate possession issues and not title disputes in cases of dispossession within six months.
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 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....
The judgment establishes the principle that the period of limitation prescribed for instituting a suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act must be adhered to, and fa....
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....
Sub-section 2(a) of section 6 stipulates that no suit under the said section shall be brought after expiry of six months from date of dispossession and sub-section (2)(b) of said Section 6 stipulates....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.