Suits under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act are strictly concerned with possession claims, not title, and any deviations invalidate court decisions.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 15th day of February, 2023.

Appellant is the defendant in O.S.No. 58/2012 on the file of Munsiff's court, Changanassery which has been filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act seeking for possession by evicting defendant from the plaint schedule property.

2. An extent of 70 Sq.meters of property along with building was purchased by the respondent/plaintiff as per sale deed No.5/2012 of S.R.O, Karukachal from one Biju Paul. He purchased the same from the defendant and his sister by virtue of sale deed No. 1940/2011 of the same S.R.O. Immediately after the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, she took possession of the building and property is situated within well defined boundaries. She made preparation to renovate the building and raw materials also collected for the same. On 31.01.2012, at mid night, defendant and his henchmen trespassed into the property and break opened the lock and took forceful possession of the building. Immediately, she filed complaint before the police, but with no results. Hence, the suit.

3. Defendant filed written statement denying the cause of action alleged by the plaintiff. Plaint schedule property and the building is in the exclusive possession of the defendant and he is conducting Ayuvedic Dispensary with due licence in that building. Defendant and his sister have executed sale deed with respect to the plaint schedule property in favour of one Biju Paul but by that document possession was not transfered to Biju Paul. The document has been executed only as a security for the repayment of loan availed by the defendant's son from Biju Paul. After the execution of that deed, when Biju Paul made attempt to obstruct the defendant’s possession and to take forceful possession of the building, defendant filed O.S.No.44/2012 against Biju Paul and that suit is pending.

4. PWs 1 and 2 examined and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked form the side of the plaintiff. DWs 1 to 3 examined and Exts.B1 to B5 marked from the side of defendant. Cw1 was examined and Ext.C1 and C2 also marked .

5. The Trial court on evaluating the facts, circumstances and evidence adduced found that the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged trespass by the defendant but it is further found that plaintiff is claiming title over the plaint schedule property and proceeded to consider the matter under Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act , 1963 instead under Section 6 of the Act. Ultimately, it is found that plaintiff succeeded to prove her title. It is also found that Biju Paul as per Ext.B1 agreement agreed to reconvey the property on payment of dues of Rs. 5 Lakhs with interest. Hence it was found that defendant failed to make a prayer for specific performance either as a suit or counter claim on expiry of the period stipulated in Ext.B1. Ext.A1 sale deed became absolute and plaintiff is entitled to title and possession of the plaint schedule property and accordingly, the suit was partly decreed. The claim for damages for unauthorized occupancy from the defendant is denied since there is no evidence to prove that the defendant has to pay any rent for the occupation and the suit decreed partly directing the defendant to vacate the building within 30 days.

6. Against which, appeal was filed and the 1st appellate court on re-appreciating facts, circumstances and evidence found that there is no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial court and thereby, dismissed the appeal. Having lost before the two forums, appellant approaches this Court in this second appeal. Appeal has been admitted on the substantial question of law formulated in the appeal memorandum which reads thus:

“1. Whether a court has got jurisdiction to grant a relief on the basis of the title of the plaintiff in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act ?

2. Whether the courts below erred in proceeding with the case to grant relief on the basis of the title of the plaintiff after entering the finding