Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Sh. Surat Singh (Deceased) Thr. LRs. Smt. Chanderwati and Others – Appellants
Versus
Delhi Development Authority – Respondent
RFA No. 806 of 2018
Decided On : 24-09-2018
Specific Relief Act - Possession - 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - [Section 6] - [Summary of Acts and Sections referenced and discussed by the court]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, possession, and mesne profits under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The suit was based on the possessory title and dispossession within six months prior to the filing of the suit. The defendant denied the plaintiff's possession and claimed that the suit property was not owned by the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC as the plaintiff could have sought the relief in an earlier suit but did not do so. The court also found that the plaintiff failed to prove settled possession of the suit property within six months prior to filing the suit. The court dismissed the suit and directed the Registrar General to file a criminal complaint against the plaintiff for filing a false case under Section 209 IPC. The court also imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 5 lakhs against the plaintiff.
Issues: The issues involved the bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC and the plaintiff's failure to prove settled possession of the suit property within six months prior to filing the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC as the relief sought in the present suit could have been claimed in an earlier suit. The court also held that the plaintiff failed to prove settled possession of the suit property within six months prior to filing the suit, as required under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, directed the filing of a criminal complaint against the plaintiff for filing a false case, and imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 5 lakhs against the plaintiff.
The document emphasizes that to establish possession under relevant property laws, it is essential to demonstrate that the possession was settled, effective, and continuous within a recent timeframe, typically the six months prior to filing a suit (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . Mere acts of trespass or intermittent possession are insufficient, especially if such acts have been repeatedly removed or if the possession was not peaceful and uninterrupted (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Furthermore, possession must be actual and with the knowledge of the owner, and illegal acts such as encroachment, demolition, or dispossession undermine the claim of settled possession (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . Possession obtained through unlawful means cannot be recognized as settled if there is no evidence of acquiescence or peaceful occupation (!) .
The importance of recent evidence is also highlighted, with an emphasis on demonstrating possession within the six months immediately prior to filing the suit. Older documents or orders that do not show recent possession are generally not considered sufficient (!) (!) (!) . Additionally, previous legal actions or orders related to different land parcels or Khasra numbers do not automatically establish possession of the disputed property (!) (!) .
In summary, successful claims of possession require proof of recent, settled, and effective possession, and illegal acts such as encroachment and demolition negatively impact such claims. The focus is on authentic, current possession evidence, excluding older or unrelated documents from consideration.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit (since deceased and now represented through legal heirs) impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 29.05.2018 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration, possession and mesne profits under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
2. As seen from the heading of the suit, as also para 14 of the plaint, the subject suit was a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, i.e. claiming possession within six months of the alleged dispossession.
3. In the present suit therefore no issue arises of claim of possession by the appellants/ plaintiff of the suit property in terms of an ownership title, and the right to possession of the suit property is only claimed as per the possessory title and of dispossession within six months prior to the subject suit having been filed on 23.10.2002. In such a suit, therefore, the appellants/plaintiff can only succeed in case the appellants/plaintiff have proved to have been in possession of the suit property within six months prior to filing of the suit.
4. Before we turn to the relevant issue of whether the appellants/plaintiff were in possession of the suit property within six months prior to filing of the suit, for the suit to be successful under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the following undisputed facts may be noticed.
5. (i) The plaintiff, Sh. Surat Singh, had earlier filed a Suit No. 177/1989 against the respondent/defendant/Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for permanent injunction claiming right to the suit property bearing no. WZ-324-A, Mauza Village Shakurpur, Delhi-110034 admeasuring 1100 sq. yds. In the earlier suit, though, lessee rights were claimed in the suit property, rights on account of possession were also claimed. Rights in the suit property were pleaded on the fact that the suit property was located in and formed part of Khasra no. 30/27 of Village Shakurpur. As per para 1 of the plaint, in the said earlier suit the property no. WZ-324-A was said to be an area of 1100 square yards, and the property was said to be leased to the plaintiff, Sh. Surat Singh, by the Sarpanch of the Gram Sabha of the Village Shakurpur for 99 years on 05.04.1960. In the earlier suit plaint, it was also claimed that since 05.04.1960, the plaintiff, Sh. Surat Singh, was a perpetual lessee in possession of the suit property and he had constructed out a residential-cum-commercial premises consisting of 8 shops, baithak and a hall, with an open courtyard. Paras 1 to 3 of the earlier suit plaint in Suit No. 177/1989 read as under:
“1. That the plaintiff Shri Surat Singh is the perpetual lessee and in occupation of all that plot of land as well as the super-structure made thereon measuring 1100 square yards and forming part of Khasra No. 30/27 Mauza Shakurpur Delhi State Delhi ever since 5.4.1960. The said plot of land was acquired as perpetual lessee by the plaintiff from the Sarpanch of the Gram Sabha Village Shakurpur Delhi State Delhi for a period of 99 years for a consideration of Rs. 1485/- and the same is continuously under the actual occupation of the plaintiff ever since 5.4.1960.
2. That the plaintiff got constructed the residential cum commercial premises on the said plot of land which is detailed and shown in the site plan of the premises filed along with the plaint.
3. That the above said property bearing house No. WZ-324-A Mauza Shakurpur Delhi comprising of eight shops, a baithak and a hall besides open court yard, with a total area of 1100 square yards, and forming part of the Khasra No. 30/27 Mauza Shakur Pur Delhi State Delhi is situate within the Lal Dora of the said village which fact was confirmed and certified by the S.D.M. Punjabi Bagh Delhi vide his Lal Dora Certificate bearing No. SDM/PB/831 dated 15.4.1981 addressed to the plaintiff.”
(Underlining added)
(ii) In the earli
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
