The court dismissed a petition seeking interim relief under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for recovery of possession. The judgment held that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the criteria for settled possession due to incomplete disclosure of a conducting agreement with a third party.
Notice of motion dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
In the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2439 OF 2009
IN SUIT NO. 1697 OF 2009.
Bata India Ltd. ..Plaintiff. v/s. Mr. R. M. Dongre & Ors. ..Deft.
Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar sr counsel a/w Aditya Khandeparkar i/b Khaitan & Jaykar for the plaintiff. Mr. Girish Godbole a/w Manjiri Parsnis for deft. no.1.
Mr. Rajesh Kachare for deft. no.5.
CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARNI, J. DATE : 30th November 2009.
P. C. :
2
3
establishing the settled possession of the plaintiff. Once the possession is settled and that fact is also confirmed by the averments in the plaint, then, the act of the defendants in forcibly entering into the premises and putting their own lock on 21st february 2009 is a blatant act of dispossession without the consent of the plaintiffs and by force. The suit is filed within the period stipulated by t he law and hence all ingredients of section 6 of the Specific Relief Act are satisfied.
4
venture agreement. The parties were to carry on business jointly as is apparent from the clauses of the agreement. This is not a case where the plaintiff was being put in exclusive possession as licensee. In any event if such is the case and a different nomenclature is sought to be given to the arrangement between the parties then the remedy of the plaintiff is to institute a suit in the Small Causes court and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit.
5
placed on record together with their annexures. There is much substance in the contentions of Mr. Godbole that the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 is very clear. A suit under sec. 6 for recovery of possession lies at the instance of the person who is dispossessed, without his consent from an immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, such person notwithstanding any other right that he would be able to set up, can file a suit to recover possession. The suit has to be brought before the expiry of period set out in section 6(2)(a) of the said Act. It is well settled that the scope of enquiry under section 6 is extremely limited. Further, the vital ingredients are that the person must be in possession, that he must have been dispossessed by the defendant, that the dispossession is without his consent and not in accordance with law and that it took place within 6 months of suit. If paragraph 22 of the plaint is perused, it is apparent that the plaintiffs are not disclosing the correct facts in relation to the arrangements between themselves and M/s. Anil Rane and Co., They have entered into conducting agreement as is apparent from the contents of this paragraph. However, irrespective of the conducting agreement the exclusive possession and the control of the suit premises remains with the plaintiff is the further averment. If the true nature of this arrangement had been disclosed it would be clear that the plaintiff had parted with the possession in favour of Anil Rane and Co. at least from the date
of execution of the conducting agreement. Though a copy of the said agreement has been produced but the only answer that the plaintiffs have given is that they
6
continue to retain control of the premises. This is eloquent enough. It demonstrates that the very essential ingredient of the plaintiff being in possession of the property from which it is dispossessed without the consent and by not in accordance with law has not been satisfied in the facts of this case. If it is not so satisfied, prima facie, then it must be held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any interim relief.
7
defendants are ready and willing to hand over possession of this stock to the plaintiff or their representative as authorised by them. Defendant no.1 has expressed readiness and willingness to hand over the possession of the stocks which were removed from the suit premises. It is directed that the same shall be handed over after an inventory of the same is made and it is duly signed by both sides. Let the needful be done and the stocks be handed over within a period of one week from today.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a plaintiff can establish settled possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act when they have parted with possession under a conducting agreement with a third party.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interim relief when they have not fully disclosed material facts regarding their possession arrangements.
Whether the petition under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act should be maintained given the plaintiff's incomplete disclosure of possession facts.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bata India Ltd.
Mr. R. M. Dongre & Ors.
S.C. DHARMADHIKARNI, J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
