Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
Gaurav Sri Kalyan – Applicant
versus
Ram Naresh Singh and Ors. – Defendants
Interim Application (L) No. 30022 of 2025 in Suit (L) No. 30021 of 2025
Decided on 13.10.2025
(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 6 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 – Application seeking temporary injunction for restoration of possession of suit premises during pendency of Suit – Relief under Section 6 of Act is essentially by way of temporary arrangement of restoration of possession till parties finally get their rival claims relating to title or possession adjudicated – Plaintiff has filed Suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act,1963 complaining of dispossession by Defendants – Mere proof of presence of Plaintiff in suit property is not sufficient for securing relief under Section 6 of Act – What needs to be proved is ‘possession’ – In present case, Plaintiff is admittedly a resident of Jordan – He is mere occasional visitor to India and claims that during his yearly visits to India, he used to reside in suit premises – Plaintiff intends to return to Jordan in connection with his employment and does not even have intention of residing in suit premises – Plaintiff neither actually resided in suit premises nor has intention of doing so after securing possession thereof – Section 6 of Act providing for summary remedy of restoration of possession is not aimed at granting any relief to a person like Plaintiff. (Paras 16 and 17)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 – Specific Relief Act,1963 – Section 6 – Application seeking temporary injunction for restoration of possession of suit premises during pendency of Suit – There is a difference between concept of ‘possession’ and ‘mere presence in property’ – Test of proving possession cannot be different for Plaintiff seeking injunction against defendant to protect possession and Plaintiff who is already dispossessed and seeks restoration of possession – For both suits, it is necessary to prove settled possession – A person who happens to be present in property or who is in casual occupation cannot claim protection in respect of possessory rights – Settled possession must be effective, undisturbed and to knowledge of owner – Plaintiff has thoroughly failed to prove prima facie case of being in settled possession of suit premises as on date of alleged dispossession – He is a permanent resident of Jordan – He has neither resided continuously or permanently in suit premises nor has any intention of doing so – Balance of convenience is also heavily tilted against Plaintiff – Plaintiff has failed to make out a case for grant of temporary injunction in his favour. (Paras 20, 21, 24 and 25)
Result: Interim Application rejected.
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff has filed the present Interim Application seeking temporary injunction for restoration of possession of the suit premises during pendency of the Suit.
2. Plaintiff has filed the present Suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 (the Act) complaining of dispossession by the Defendants on 8 September 2025. Block Nos.1 and 3 on ground floor of the building named ‘Laxmi Sadan’ situated at Plot No.123, Sir Bhalchandra Road, 5th Lane Corner, Hindu Colony, Dadar (East), Mumbai are the ‘suit premises’.
3. Plaintiff ‘s pleaded case in the Plaint is that he is a nephew and Class-II legal heir of Radheshyam Chhotelal Shah (Radheshyam) who was a tenant in respect of the suit premises. It is also Plaintiff ‘s case that Smt. Saroj Krishnaji Salakade (Saroj) had 1/6th undivided share in the land and the building in which the suit premises are located. That the other co-owners had transferred/released their respective 1/6th shares in the land and the building in her favor thereby making Saroj 50% owner in respect of the land and the building. That Radheshyam took possession of Block No.1 on the ground floor from another tenant and acquired tenancy rights therein by paying consideration. That Radheshyam also acquired tenancy rights in respect of Block No.3 on the ground floor from Saroj for valid consideration. This is how Radheshyam claimed tenancy rights in respect of Block Nos.1 and 3 which are the suit premises.
4. Saroj was occupying Block No.9 and Radheshyam and his wife used to take care of her and started residing with Saroj in Block No.9 since 1993-94. That said Saroj bequeathed her entire share in the land and building in favour of Radheshyam vide Will dated 25 January 2006. That Plaintiff is the executor of the Will executed by Saroj. After the death of Saroj, Defendant No.2, with the aid of Defendant No.3 and Defendant No.1 forcibly dispossessed Radheshyam on 3 September 2006 in respect of possession of Block No.9. Radheshyam returned to the suit premises. Radheshyam had instituted S.C. Suit No. 4835/2006 under Section 6 of the Act complaining about forcible dispossession from Block No.9, which is still pending.
5. Radheshyam is the brother of Plaintiff ‘s father. Radheshyam did not have any issue and his wife had passed away in the year 2012. Plaintiff claims to be the sole legal heir of Radheshyam. Plaintiff ‘s father passed away in the year 1999 after which he shifted to Mumbai and started residing with Radheshyam earlier in Block No.9 as a member of his family. Plaintiff took up employment in Jordan but continued visiting Radheshyam almost every year by residing with him in Block No.9. After death of Saroj on 8 August 2006, Plaintiff had resided with Radheshyam in Block No.9. After forcible dispossession of Radheshyam from Block No. 9 in September 2006, he shifted to the suit premises and Plaintiff resided with Radheshyam in suit premises as a member of his family. That as per the wish of Radheshyam, Plaintiff had given up employment in Jordan with intention to permanently settle down in India in the year 2012 and resided with Radheshyam in the suit premises as family member. That in 2016, due to personal reasons, Plaintiff was constrained back to travel back to Jordan. That during 2016 to 2025, Plaintiff used to regularly visit Radheshyam and reside in the suit premises as a member of his family. That Plaintiff used to take care of Radheshyam. Plaintiff relies upon several documents to prove his residence in the suit premises. Radheshyam passed away on 2 July 2025. Plaintiff immediately flew down to India on 3 July 2025 from Jordan and performed last rites of Radheshyam. At about 2.00 p.m. on 8 September 2025, Plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed from the suit premises by the Defendants. Plaintiff has narrated the account of the events that allegedly occurred on 8 September 2025 leading to his dispossession from the suit premises, to which detailed reference at this stage is unnecessary.
6. After P
(1) There is a difference between concept of ‘possession’ and ‘mere presence in property’.(2) Test of proving possession cannot be different for Plaintiff seeking injunction against defendant to prot....
Possession and temporary injunction claims under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, providing summary protection against unlawful dispossession, established by continuous occupation even in absenc....
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....
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 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.
The court ruled that a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act requires proof of dispossession within six months, and the limitation period begins from the date of dispossession, not from the....
Section 6 Specific Relief Act suits are summary for possession restoration only; composite suits with injunction, compensation, or title/payment disputes between developer and purchaser exceed scope ....
The court affirmed that a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is maintainable for recovery of possession despite the land being government property, emphasizing the protection of possessi....
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
