Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 757
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
QAYAMUDDIN & ORS – Appellants
Versus
JAMIL-UD-DIN & ORS - Respondents
RFA 309/1997
Decided On : 8th July, 2013
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Nikhil Chhoker for Mr. Qayamuddin, Adv.
Ms. Amita Gupta, Adv. for R-7.
Mr. Ashok Mahipal, Adv. for R-8.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act, which prohibits appeals from orders or decrees passed in suits instituted under this section.
Headnote:
Specific Relief Act - Suit for Declaration, Possession under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, Damages and Injunction - Section 6
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a suit for declaration, possession, damages, and injunction under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, after being forcefully dispossessed from a property. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellants filed an appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeal was not maintainable as per Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act, which states that no appeal lies from any order or decree passed in a suit instituted under this section. The court also held that the reliefs of declaration, damages, and injunction were closely intertwined with the relief of possession and were not maintainable without it.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the appeal against the dismissal of the suit for various reliefs under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appeal was not maintainable as per Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act, and the reliefs of declaration, damages, and injunction were incidental or consequential to the main relief of possession under Section 6.
Final Decision: The appeal was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed by the court.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. Mr. Nikhil Chhoker proxy counsel for Mr. Qayamuddin stated to be Advocate for the appellant no.2 appears and seeks adjournment. None appears for the appellant no.1 and appellant no.3.
2. This being an appeal of the year 1997 and there being no cause disclosed for the adjournment sought, the same has been refused. A perusal of the order sheet also shows that adjournments were sought by Mr. Nikhil Chhoker, Advocate on 25th February, 2013 and 15th April, 2013. There is no reason to keep this appeal pending specially when the appellants themselves do not appear to be interested in pursuing the same.
3. The counsel for the respondent no.8 who alone besides the counsel for the respondent no.7 MCD appears, has been asked to address.
4. The counsel for the respondent no.8 has contended that the suit from which this appeal arises was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and under sub Section (3) thereof, no appeal lies against the order of dismissal thereof. He thus contends that this appeal is not maintainable.
5. Section 6 of the Act is as under:-
“6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property.-
(1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit.
(2) No suit under this section shall be brought- (a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or (b) against the Government.
(3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed.
(4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof.”
6. A perusal of the Trial Court record shows that the three appellants had filed the suit from which this appeal arises, “For Declaration, Possession under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, Damages and Injunction” pleading that they had on 11th November, 1996 been forcefully dispossessed without due process of law from property bearing No.B-93, Main Road, Braham Puri, Delhi – 110 053 built up on an area of 175/180 sq. yds. It was expressly stated in para 6 of the plaint that the appellants being in joint possession could not be dispossessed against their will and consent and without due process of law because Section 6 of the Act does not make any distinction between a joint possession and an exclusive possession. Reliefs of declaration that the forcible dispossession of the appellants/plaintiffs was illegal, unwarranted and without due process of law, and of recovery of possession of the premises from which appellants/plaintiffs were dispossessed were claimed. It was further pleaded that the defendants no.1to 4 in the suit were planning to sell the property and had also started raising illegal construction thereon and on the basis of the said pleas the reliefs of injunction restraining the defendants from selling or parting with possession of the property or from raising any construction thereon was claimed; damages of Rs.2,43,000/- on account of forcible dispossession and of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of institution of the suit and till restoration of possession, were also claimed.
7. The defendants in the suit applied under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC inter alia pleading that the appellants had filed the suit under Section 6 of the Act and the reliefs as claimed of injunction and damages could be made in the plaint.
8. The appellants filed a reply to the said application and in which they did not deny the suit to be under Section 6 of the Act but pleaded that the other reliefs claimed were incidental or consequential to the relief of possession claimed under Section 6 of the Act.
9. The learned Addl. District Judge has allowed the aforesaid application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and held
