Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA ALIAS BABLU – Appellant
Versus
PURNIMA GARG – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
CM APPL. 63081/2023 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of.
3. The Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") has been filed on behalf he Revisionist/Defendant, Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta @ Bablu, to challenge the Judgment and Decree dated 05.08.2023 vide which Suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, has been decreed against him and he has been directed to hand over the possession of the suit property, to the Respondent/Plaintiff, Ms. Purnima Garg.
4. Briefly stated, the Respondent/Plaintiff filed a Suit under Section 6 of the Relief Act, 1963 against the Revisionist/Defendant, to seek the possession. The Respondent/Plaintiff had stated that Late Smt. Shanti Rani Gupta and her husband, Mr. Hukum Chand Gupta had died without child. House No. 96A, Block-H, Shakarpur, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „Suit Property‟), comprised of a Ground Floor and First Floor. There were two bed rooms, one drawing room, kitchen, bathroom and toilet on the Ground Floor while there existed three rooms, kitchen and bathroom
A claimant under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act must prove settled possession and unlawful dispossession; failure to establish such possession invalidates their claim.
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 r....
Watchman or caretaker's occupation of outhouse does not constitute settled possession of entire property under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; plaintiffs' prior possession proved by repair works entit....
The court ruled that while unlawful dispossession was established, the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit on technicalities violated the substantive rights under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
Possession by one co-owner is legally attributable to all; disputed wills necessitate probate for exclusive rights to property claims.
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.
A plaintiff can recover possession of immovable property if they prove prior possession and unlawful dispossession, even without establishing ownership under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
Possession can be reclaimed swiftly under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, allowing immediate remedies against illegal dispossession, disregarding title disputes.
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
