1. Suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for restoration of possession after alleged forcible dispossession from suit premises. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 180097
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE
GAURAV SRI KALYAN S/O JAYANT KUMAR GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
RAM NARESH SINGH – Respondent
IAL/30022/2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shailesh Shah, Karl Shroff, Vaibhav Mehta, Nishant Tanna
For the Respondents: Surel Shah, Anil Mishra, U.V. Singh, Mayur Khandeparkar, Ratnakar Singh, Salil Choudhari
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shailesh Shah, Karl Shroff, Vaibhav Mehta, Nishant Tanna
For the Respondents: Surel Shah, Anil Mishra, U.V. Singh, Mayur Khandeparkar, Ratnakar Singh, Salil Choudhari
For a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the plaintiff must prove settled possession with animus possidendi; mere casual presence is insufficient.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 6 - Suit for restoration of possession - Requirement of settled possession - Necessity of animus possidendi - Distinction between possession and mere presence - A suit under Section 6 is a summary remedy available only to a person who proves actual, settled possession with the intention to possess; casual or occasional presence is insufficient. (Paras 16-20)
(B) Possession - Animus possidendi - Element of mental intention to control and exclude others from the property - A person who does not reside in the premises and has no intention of residing cannot claim possessory protection under Section 6. (Paras 18-19)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a resident of a foreign country, claimed to be the nephew and sole legal heir of a deceased tenant of the suit premises. After the tenant’s death, the plaintiff flew to India for the funeral. The plaintiff alleged forcible dispossession from the suit premises on a specific date and filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking restoration of possession. The defendants opposed, contending that the plaintiff never had settled possession of the premises.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was not in settled possession. He had only entered the premises for funeral rites, had no intention of residing there (as he intended to return abroad), and lacked the requisite animus possidendi. The court held that mere presence or casual occupation does not amount to possession under Section 6. The balance of convenience was against the plaintiff, and other remedies (such as a declaratory suit) were available.
Issues: 1. Whether a plaintiff seeking relief under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, must prove settled possession or mere presence is sufficient. 2. Whether the plaintiff in this case had the requisite animus possidendi.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Section 6 protects actual possession, not a mere claim to possession. Settled possession requires effective, undisturbed occupation with the intention to possess and exclude others. A person who does not reside in the premises and lacks any intention to do so cannot be said to be in possession. The plaintiff’s presence for a temporary purpose (funeral) does not confer possessory rights.
Result: Interim Application rejected.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- specific relief
- property law
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff argued mere possession sufficient; Defendants argued settled possession required for relief under Section 6. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. Interim application for temporary injunction rejected; plaintiff failed to prove settled possession of suit premises. (Para 24 , 25 )
4. What is the nature of possession required to maintain a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act?
The plaintiff must prove settled possession, not mere casual presence or occasional occupation. Stray or intermittent acts are insufficient. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
5. Is animus possidendi (intention to possess) necessary for establishing possession under Section 6?
Yes, possession requires a conscious intent to control and exclude others. Without animus possidendi, mere presence does not constitute possession. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
6. Can a relative staying gratuitously with a tenant claim possession under Section 6 after the tenant's death?
No, a relative staying gratuitously or as a caretaker does not acquire possessory rights. Long possession in that capacity is of no legal consequence. (Para 22 , 23 )
7. What alternative remedies are available to a person claiming tenancy or ownership after dispossession?
Such a person may file a declaratory suit in Small Causes Court for tenancy or a suit for recovery based on title. Section 6 is not the only remedy. (Para 24 )
JUDGMENT:
1) 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 stag
