Back
SIDDHARTHA ROY CHOWDHURY
Tapas Kumar Das – Appellant
Versus
Sahajahan Mahammad @ Pute – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.
1. The second appeal challenges the judgement and decree passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Nadia in Title Appeal No. 54 of 2013 reversing thereby the judgement and decree passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Additional Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia in Title Suit No. 39 of 2012.
2. To appreciate the appeal in its proper perspective it is expedient to narrate the facts in brief.
3. The plaintiffs who are the appellants before this Court filed a suit under Section 6 of SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT claiming recovery / restoration of possession under Section 6 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT as allegedly they were dispossessed otherwise than due course of law.
4. Briefly stated, claiming to have acquired right, title. interest over the suit property by purchase from Gafuranechha Bibi on 08.02.1974, Girindra Mohan, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, filed a suit for recovery of possession against Gafuranechha Bibi being Title Suit No. 161 of 1979 and Gafuranechha Bibi filed a suit being T.S. No. 78 of 1979 claiming that the sale deed based on which Girindra Kr. Das, predecessor–in-interest of the plaintiffs claimed to have acquired
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....
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....
The necessity for clear factual findings regarding possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is critical in summary proceedings concerning unlawful dispossession.
Plaintiff must prove prior possession within six months of dispossession under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act; mere claims without credible evidence of personal knowledge are insufficient.
The court emphasized that under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the focus is on possession rather than title, affirming the summary nature of dispossession proceedings.
A suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act requires actual physical possession, which the Ex-Director could not claim independently from a company in liquidation.
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
