IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Gurmeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
Manjeet Kaur & Anr. – Respondents
C.R.P. 87 of 2022 & C.M. APPL. 29381 of 2022, 45118 of 2022
Decided On : 02-06-2023
Specific Relief Act - Suit for possession - Section 6 - [OWNERSHIP, POSSESSION, FORCIBLE DISPOSSESSION, ADMISSIONS, TRIAL COURT DECREE, ORDER XII RULE 6 CPC, SECTION 53-A OF TP ACT, SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS, TRIABLE ISSUES, AMENDMENT TO SECTION 53-A]
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act seeking possession of the suit property, alleging forcible dispossession and dispossession without consent by the Defendant. Defendant contested the suit, claiming possession in part performance of an Agreement to Sell. Plaintiffs sought a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, based on Defendant's admissions in the written statement.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Defendant's admissions did not include forcible dispossession, a crucial requirement for a decree under Section 6. The Court held that the suit required a full-fledged trial to resolve disputed issues, including ownership, possession, and the applicability of Section 53-A of TP Act. The impugned decree passed on admissions was set aside, and the Trial Court was directed to decide the suit within six months.
Issues: The key issues included establishing forcible dispossession, resolving disputes over ownership and possession, and determining the applicability of Section 53-A of TP Act. The Court also addressed the appropriateness of a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and the need for a full-fledged trial to resolve the disputed issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that a suit under Section 6 of the Act requires clear and unequivocal admissions, particularly regarding forcible dispossession, for a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The Court also highlighted the need for a full-fledged trial to resolve disputed issues and triable legal questions.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the Trial Court was directed to decide the suit within six months, affording the parties an opportunity to lead evidence. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. Present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.02.2022 passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of the Respondents herein under Order XII Rule 6 CPC to the extent of relief of possession. Petitioner herein was the Defendant before the Trial Court and Respondents were the Plaintiffs and parties are referred to by their litigating status before the Trial Court, hereinafter.
2. Factual matrix is in a narrow compass. Plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') seeking possession of the suit property being first floor with roof rights measuring 95 sq. yds. i.e. (79.43 sq. meters) and roof rights of third floor area measuring 50 sq. yards. i.e. (41.80 sq. meters) out of built-up property bearing Municipal No. CB-8, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower, New Delhi-110064 as well as for injunction and damages predicated on the ownership of Plaintiff No.2 and settled possession till 05.03.2019. Case of the Plaintiffs before the Trial Court was that Defendant in collusion with one Shri Joginder wanted to grab the property of the Plaintiffs and construct a multi-storeyed building on the suit property and thus repeatedly requested the Plaintiffs to sell the property. On 31.08.2018, terms of sale were settled between Plaintiff No.2 and the Defendant in presence of the property dealer and Defendant entered into an Agreement to purchase the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.57 lacs and a Receipt-cum-Agreement with blanks filled up in hand was signed between the parties and Shri Joginder was the attesting witness. Rs.1 lac was received as earnest money by the Plaintiffs and the remaining amount of Rs.56 lacs was to be paid by the Defendant within 120 days i.e. till 31.12.2018 since the Sale Deed was to be executed by the said date.
3. It is averred in the plaint that Defendant gave a further payment of Rs.1 lac to Plaintiff No.2 on 21.09.2018 and on 14.11.2018 requested for grant of 20-25 days for arranging the balance amount. Conceding to the request, Plaintiff No.2 entered into a fresh agreement dated 15.11.2018, which was witnessed by Shri Joginder and as per this Agreement Sale Deed was to be executed on 25.01.2019 only after full and final payment of the balance amount. On 17.11.2018, a further sum of Rs.4 lacs was paid to Plaintiff No.2 and a receipt to this effect was executed by the Defendant himself.
4. In the last week of December, 2018, it is stated that Defendant once again sought more time to clear the balance payment on the ground that he was having a problem in sanction of the loan from the Bank as Plaintiff No.2 was GPA holder of the suit property and accordingly on his advice, Plaintiff No.2 executed a Gift Deed in favour of Plaintiff No.1 to facilitate the sanction of loan. Gift Deed was accordingly executed on 09.01.2019, however, on 20.01.2019 Defendant again sought 30 days for clearing the balance sale consideration.
5. In order to ensure that the transaction goes through and no further extension is sought by the Defendant, a legal notice was sent by Plaintiff No.2 to the Defendant calling upon him to appear before the Sub-Registrar on 25.01.2019 with Rs.51 lacs, the balance sale consideration. On 25.01.2019, Plaintiffs visited the office of Sub-Registrar-IIB, Janakpuri and their presence is established by two receipts bearing Nos. 38590 and 38591, however, Defendant did not come with the demand draft. He nonetheless expressed his willingness to conclude the transaction and assured payment of balance sale consideration.
6. Plaintiffs averred that they shifted some of their household articles from the suit property to their daughter's house at Noida on 20.01.2019 since they were assured that the Sale Deed will be executed in the near future. However, much to their shock on 02.02.2019, Defendant along with Shri Joginder and four musclemen entered
A suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act requires clear and unequivocal admissions, particularly regarding forcible dispossession, for a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Disputed issues an....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff must prove his possession and dispossession within a period of six months,....
Ownership of property is transferred upon execution of a sale deed; possession cannot be denied based on unpaid sale consideration.
(1) Tenant-Landlord relationship cannot come to an end on execution of Agreement to Sell – Even if consideration has been exchanged purchaser does not become owner of property till the time registere....
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.