This petition, under Article 226, sought to impugn an order dismissing a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Single Judge held that the trial court correctly concluded the petition failed due to lack of proof of dispossession and contradictory claims regarding the date of dispossession.
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.
$~J-
% Judgment Pronounced on : 14.02.2019
CHAMAN SINGH .....Petitioner Through Mr.R.N.Dubey, Adv.
Versus
DEV PRAKASH GOEL & ANR. ....Respondents Through Respondent No.2-in-person.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.
CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 1 of 14
attorney through irrevocable general power of attorney who carved out a colony and sold the said the suit property being plot No. 20 & 21 to Sh. Virender Kumar and Sh.Pawan Kumar Arora by a registered sale deed dated 18.11.1974. The said Sh. Virender Kumar and Sh. Pawan Kumar Arora sold the property to one Sh. Sunil Kumar. Sh. Sunil Kumar thereafter sold the property one Sh.Jagroop Singh. The plaintiff purchased the said plot from Sh. Jagroop Singh on 26.09.2001. The documents which are said to have been executed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff include Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, etc. which are said to be duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Delhi. It is pleaded that possession of the plot was handed over to the petitioner/plaintiff. When the petitioner/plaintiff purchased the suit land, there was only one room in the plot. It is further pleaded that shortly thereafter the respondents/defendants came to the site along with their associates on 01.10.2001 and 02.10.2001 and tried to enter into the suit property claiming the property as their own. However, it is pleaded that the defendants/respondents did not succeed in taking over possession. It is stated that respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 has good connections with the police and in connivance with the police, a kalandra under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was got registered. It is further pleaded that the respondents/defendants came along with police on 26.04.2002 with their associates and put building construction material near the site for purpose of construction. On 27.04.2002, it is stated that the defendants/respondents in connivance with the police dispossessed the petitioner/plaintiff from the suit property without the petitioner‟s consent and otherwise, against the due process of law. Thereafter, the respondents/defendants started constructions on the property.
CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 2 of 14
It is claimed that the police is in connivance with the respondents/ defendants. Hence this suit.
CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 3 of 14
respondents/defendants. It is stated that only one room was lying constructed in the suit property along with full boundary wall. Full construction was carried out by the respondents/defendants after taking possession through the authorities. Defendants/respondents are stated to be in possession of plot measuring 400 sq. yards. out of Khasra No. 5-2/6, 7, 14 , 15 and 17/1 situated at Village Karawal Nagar, Ilaqa Shahdara, Delhi known as plot No. 31-32, Gali No. 2, Rama Garden, Delhi 110094 now new number has been allotted as A-29 and A-30. The plot was purchased by Registered Sale Deed dated 15.6.1974 by defendant No.1 from Shri Munshi and Shri Mohd. Akbar. Further the case of the respondents/defendants is that plaintiff has carried out certain interpolation and manipulations in respect of Khasra No. 39/7. It is stated that the petitioner claims this number to be 39/7/4 whereas there is no „4‟ in the certified records available with the respondents/defendants. The respondents/defendant also state that they have no objection in case the suit is transferred to the court which is hearing the suit filed by Sh. Jagroop Singh. It is also the case of the respondents/defendants that it was Sh.Jagroop Singh who sought to encroach upon the plot of the respondents/defendants in connivance with the petitioner/plaintiff on 05.10.2001. However, this movement came to the notice of Sh. Bhishm who resides in the neighbourhood who informed Sh.Hridesh who is running a factory at a nearby place. A complaint was made on telephone No. 100 by the residents to the police. The residents also informed the respondents/defendants who reached the site. It was the police who got the premises locked and took away the keys for making necessary inquiries. After achieving prima facie satisfaction on verifications at site, the police handed over peaceful possession to the defendants on 29.10.2001. It is
4 of 14
stated that the respondents/defendants are respectful persons, respondent No.1/defendant No. 1 being a Retired Medical Officer from Kirkari Dispensary.
“i) Whether the plaintiff was in possession of suit property 100 sq.yards of land in plot No. 20 & 21 out of khasra No. 39-8/2, 39/7-4 of the revenue part of 25 foota road in the Abadi of Rama Garden, Karawal Nagar, Delhi? (OPP)
ii) Whether the plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendants from the above mentioned suit property? (OPP)
iii) Whether the suit is filed within six months as per Specific Relief Act? OPP
iv) Relief.”
CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 5 of 14
39/7, after this number „4‟ is appearing on the document i.e. 39/7-4. As per the defendants, this number „4‟ has been added later on fraudulently. The order further notes that the case of the defendants/respondents is that measurement of the road on the east side is manipulated to be 25 feet instead of 15 feet. Along with the sale deed Ex. PW-1/7 no site plan was attached which could have shown the location of this plot 20/21. However in contrast the respondents/defendants in the evidence have summoned the SubRegistrar with the certified copy of the sale deed dated 15.06.1974. DW-2 produced a certified copy of the sale deed. There is no number „4‟ given along with khasra No. 39/7. The certified copy also shows that on the east side measurement of the road is 15 feet and not 25 feet as shown in the Ex. PW-1/7. The trial court notes that this piece of evidence has not been successfully challenged by the petitioner/plaintiff. The trial court concludes that Ex.PW-1/7, the title document relied upon by the plaintiff/petitioner has not been correctly produced and has been manipulated.
The trial court by the impugned order also noted that the present suit is filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and the primary onus was on the plaintiff/petitioner to show his possession of the suit property. The trial court concludes that from the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the parties were more concerned about the title as well as the number given to the suit property. Even if, the number given by the plaintiff/petitioner is presumed to be correct, even then it was for the plaintiff to show that he was in possession of the suit property. Merely filing documents which are GPA and other such documents executed in respect of land under different khasra numbers do not have the effect to show that the plaintiff/petitioner was actually in possession of the suit property which was plot No. 20 and 21.
CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 6 of 14
The trial court also notes that a perusal of the cross-examination of DW-1 would show that it was the stand of the plaintiff/petitioner that he was in possession of the property prior to 05.10.2001 and that defendant No. 2/respondent No. 2 was not in possession of the property from 15.06.1974 to 05.10.2001. This stand, the trial court notes, is contradictory to the plea taken in the plaint where the plaintiff/petitioner has alleged that the police came along with building material on 26.04.2002 with the defendants/respondents On 27.04.2002, it is pleaded in the plaint that the respondents/defendants in connivance with the police dispossessed the petitioner/plaintiff from the suit property. The trial court also noted that the plaintiff/petitioner has failed to disclose the manner in which he was dispossessed, time taken for the said dispossession, persons present and reaction of any such persons available. The trial court also noted that if the plaintiff/petitioner would have really been dispossessed from the suit property in the manner projected by him then why the plaintiff/petitioner remain silent on the relevant aspects other than stressing upon the so called title documents. The trial court noted that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was actually in possession of the suit property and that he was dispossessed on 27.04.2002.
On issue No. 3, namely, as to whether the suit was filed within six months, the trial court concludes that from the pleadings of the defendants/respondents, it can be inferred that the plaintiff/petitioner was dispossessed from the suit property on 05.10.2001. Taking the date of dispossession as 05.10.2001, then the suit would be barred by limitation under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The issue was decided against the petitioner/plaintiff.
CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 7 of 14
“6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property.—
(1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover
CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 8 of 14
possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit.
(2) No suit under this section shall be brought—
(a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or
(b) against the Government.
(3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed.
(4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof.”
CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 9 of 14
prior to the filing of the suit. This is because Section 6(2) prescribes a period of six months from the date of dispossession as the outer limit for filing of a suit. As the question of possession and illegal dispossession therefrom is the only issue germane to a suit under Section 6, a proceeding thereunder, naturally, would partake the character of a summary proceeding against which the remedy by way of appeal or review has been specifically excluded by Sub-Section 3 of Section 6. SubSection 4 also makes it clear that an unsuccessful litigant in a suit under Section 6 would have the option of filing a fresh suit for recovery of possession on the basis of title, if any.”
“12. A proceeding under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is intended to be a summary proceeding the object of which is to afford an immediate remedy to an aggrieved party to reclaim possession of which he may have been unjustly denied by an illegal act of dispossession. Questions of title or better rights of possession does not arise for adjudication in a suit under Section 6 where the only issue required to be decided is as to whether the Plaintiff was in possession at any time six months prior to the date of filing of the suit. The legislative concern underlying Section 6 of the SR Act is to provide a quick remedy in cases of illegal dispossession so as to discourage litigants from seeking remedies outside the arena of law. The same is evident from the provisions of Section 6(3) which bars the remedy of an appeal or even a review against a decree passed in such a suit.”
CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 10 of 14
“It is not correct that police had put me in possession of suit property No.A29, A30 Gali No.2, Rama Garden, Karawal Nagar, on 05.10.2001. I have given description of suit property mentioning its number in para No.1 at page No.3, which is at point X to XI. It is wrong to suggest that I was not in possession of this property w.e.f. 15.06.1974 to 05.10.2011. It is wrong to suggest that this property was in possession of plaintiff since 26.09.2001 to 05.10.2011. It is wrong to suggest that documents executed in favour of my husband in respect of aforesaid suit property are forged and fabricated documents. It is wrong to suggest that suit property has the number of A31 and A32. Vol., at the time of execution of sale deed it had the number of A31 and A32 but now it has the number of A29 and A30. I do not known when this number was changed and by whom it was changed. It is wrong to suggest that on 05.10.2011, police had put me in possession of property bearing No.A20 and A21 belonging to plaintiff. It is wrong to suggest that property A20 and A21 belonged to plaintiff.
CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 11 of 14
very sketchy. In his affidavit by way of evidence, PW-1, namely, the petitioner merely states that on 27.04.2002, the defendants/respondents in connivance with the police dispossessed him. Relevant part of his evidence states as follows:-
“13. I say that on 27.04.2002 the defendant in connivance with police has dispossessed the deponent of the suit property without deponent‟s consent or otherwise therein due process of law. The defendants after taking the possession of the suit property on 27.04.2002, as stated above, have started raising the construction in the suit property. The connection of the defendants is visible from the act that she has not even obtained the requisite permission for construction from the concerned Department. Moreover the defendants have no right to raise the construction on the plot of the deponent, who is the exclusive, law owner of the same. Shri Jagroop Singh also filed one application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 in the court of Ms.D.Savita Rao, Civil Judge, Delhi for restraining defendant from raising any unauthorized construction.”
“It is wrong to suggest that I was not disposes on 27.04.2002 by the defendants. It is wrong to suggest that Om Prakash, Prem Narian, Raju, Sumer Chand Shali are in possession of the plot No.20 & 21 and New No.A-57 and 58. It is correct that FIR No.404/01, dt. 05.11.01 u/s 451/323/506/34 IPC has been lodged against me for forcibly entering in southern side of plot which is adjoining to the plot in which I am residing today. It is wrong to suggest that there are any litigation pending against me for forcibily taking the possession of the lands belonging to others by making forged documents. It is wrong to suggest that I, Sansar Pal, Mahinder Pal and Sh.Jagroop Singh are land grabbers.”
CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 12 of 14
taken no steps whatsoever. On the contrary, an FIR was lodged against him under Section 448 IPC. He has filed the present suit on or around 27.08.2002 meaning thereby, it took four months to wake up to file a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Other than filing the suit, there is no other reaction to the alleged illegal dispossession from the suit property.
CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 13 of 14
errors in the findings recorded by the learned trial court. As there is no material illegality and irregularity in the impugned order, I do not see any reason to allow the present petition. The same is dismissed.
(JAYANT NATH) JUDGE
FEBRUARY 14, 2019/rb/v
CM (M) 1536/2010 Page
14 of 14
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order dismissing the suit for possession due to lack of proof of dispossession.
Whether the plaintiff's contradictory stands regarding the date of dispossession materially affected the trial court's finding that the suit was barred.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
ITC Limited v. Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society LimitedExplained¶49
ITC Limited v. Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Limited, (2013) 10 SCC 169 · Who else cites this
Mohd. Mehtab Khan & Ors. V. Khushnuma Ibrahim & Ors.Explained¶53
Mohd. Mehtab Khan & Ors. V. Khushnuma Ibrahim & Ors., 2013 (9) SCC 221 · Who else cites this
CHAMAN SINGH
DEV PRAKASH GOEL
JAYANT NATH
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
