Court confirmed that possession, established without due process, warrants restoration under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, irrespective of ownership documents, which do not confer automatic rights to possession.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. A Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC, 1908”) has been filed by the Petitioners (Defendants) to challenge the Judgment dated 11.01.2021 in Civil Suit No. 250/2020 vide which the decree of possession has been made against them under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

2. Briefly stated, the Respondent-Smt.Salma Deshmukh (Plaintiff filed a Suit for Possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction.

3. As per the Plaintiff of plot bearing No.20, Shyam Vihar, Phase-1, Dindarpur, Najafgarh New Delhi-110043 measuring approximately 120 sq. yards (hereinafter referred to as “Suit Property”) was originally owned by one Sh. Randhir who had then sold it to one Sh. Vinay Madhur from whom she had purchased the Suit Property from by execution of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Possession Letter etc. dated 13.01.2011, for a sale consideration of Rs.13,50,000/-. She had continued to be the owner of the Suit Property since then. She even constructed a boundary wall and also fixed a gate on the Suit Plot.

4. On 13.02.2020, she received a call from her relatives who resided nearby, that the Revisionist/Defendants have forcibly entered and are claiming ownership over the Suit Property. She sent her son, Zakhir Deshmukh to the spot and somehow those intruders went away. Again on 14.02.2020, she came to know that same people have returned to the property and have broken the lock at the gate and have partly demolished the boundary wall. They caused damage to the Suit Property in collusion with the local police and did not allow the Plaintiff/Respondent to enter the Suit Property which was in her ownership and possession till 14.02.2020.

5. The Plaintiff made a complaint to the police on 15.02.2020 who assured her for taking the necessary action. In the meantime, Revisionist/Defendant No.1 and 2 continued to be in possession and raised construction on the Suit Property. The Plaintiff, thus, filed the Suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for restoration of her possession in the Suit Property.

6. The Suit was contested by the Revisionists/Defendants who in their Written Statement set up the defence that they had purchased the Suit Property from her erstwhile owner, Sh. Jai Kumar Thakur vide documents namely GPA, Agreement to Sell etc. dated 11.12.2001 and they have been in possession of the Suit Plot since then. It was further claimed that they had got the boundary wall constructed along the plot and had also carried out Damp Proof course (DPC). They, with the intent of raising construction over the suit plot, applied for an Electricity connection on 24.01.2020. When they started their construction on the suit plot, Respondent/Plaintiff along with their relatives and other local people, tried to interfere in the construction work and also extended threats to demolish or burn the property and Police complaints were made by them. It was thus, asserted that they have been in possession since 2001 and that the Suit of the Plaintiff was liable to be dismissed.

7. It is further submitted that the connivance of the Plaintiff with the SHO is further evident from the fact that soon after the Decree, an Execution Petition was filed and the possession has been handed over to the Plaintiff within two months.

8. The following issues were framed in the Suit:

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession as prayed for? OPP.

2. Whether the proper court fees has not been filed? OPD.

3. Whether the