Section 6 of Specific Relief Act Requires Proof of 'Settled Possession,' Not Just Mere Presence: Bombay High Court - 2025-10-13

Beyond Mere Presence: Bombay HC Denies Summary Repossession Claim

In a noteworthy ruling regarding property dispossession, the Bombay High Court has clarified the stringent requirements for seeking relief under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 . Justice Sandeep V. Marne rejected an application for a temporary injunction filed by a Plaintiff who sought to regain control of a property in Dadar, Mumbai, emphasizing that a summary remedy is not a substitute for demonstrating "settled possession."

The Dispute: A Tale of Two Jurisdictions

The Plaintiff, Gaurav Sri Kalyan, who is primarily based in Jordan, claimed he had been forcibly dispossessed of "Laxmi Sadan" in Mumbai on September 8, 2025. The Plaintiff argued that he had lived in the premises as a family member of his late uncle, the deceased tenant Radheshyam, and as such, was entitled to restoration of possession under the summary provisions of the Act.

The Defendants, however, contested this, arguing that the Plaintiff’s residence abroad and his intermittent visits to India did not constitute the "settled possession" required under law. The court was tasked with determining whether a claimant’s mere historical or temporary presence at a property qualifies for the protections granted by Section 6.

The Court’s Analysis: What Constitutes Possession?

Justice Marne dissected the legal nuances of "possession" versus "presence." The court held that while Section 6 provides a summary remedy to restore possession without needing to prove absolute title, it is strictly reserved for those who can show an "effective and undisturbed" occupancy.

The court heavily leaned on the landmark precedents of Rame Gowda v. M. Vardhappa Naidu and Poona Ram v. Moti Ram . These apex judgements establish that "settled possession" must contain an element of animus possidendi —the conscious intention to possess and control the property, coupled with the exclusion of others.

"The contention that it is not necessary to prove settled possession and that proof of possession even for some time at the time of dispossession is sufficient cannot be accepted," Justice Marne observed. The court further noted that the Plaintiff’s presence in the property to perform funeral rites for his deceased uncle was a temporary, situational act that could not be confused with the legal status of an occupant.

Key Observations from the Bench

The Court emphasized several critical points throughout the judgment:

• On the Nature of Possession: "Settled possession must be (i) effective, (ii) undisturbed, and (iii) to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser."
• On Intent: "For possessing an immovable property, there must be an element of animus possidendi i.e. intention to possess involving the mental element of possession, requiring a conscious intent to control and exclude others from the property."
• On the Scope of the Act: "Section 6 of the Act is not aimed at protecting mere ‘claim to possession’. It is aimed at protecting ‘actual possession’."

Implications for Future Property Litigation

The decision serves as a significant guardrail against the misuse of Section 6. By affirming that the law protects those in "settled" and "actual" possession rather than casual visitors or claimants based on familial ties of deceased tenants, the Bombay High Court has reinforced the evidentiary burden on plaintiffs in summary suits.

For the Plaintiff, the door remains open to pursue his claims through a regular declaratory suit in the Small Causes Court or a title-based recovery suit. However, this ruling sends a clear message: for the courts to intervene summarily, a plaintiff must demonstrate more than just an itinerary; they must demonstrate a home.