Revision petitions against dismissal of suits for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The High Court affirmed that possession had passed to purchasers in 1996 and the suit filed in 1999 exceeded the six-month limit, dismissing both revisions.
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:12033]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 52/2004
Dev Kishan
----Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Kamla Devi And Ors
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 124/2004
Dev Kishan
----Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Rekha Devi And Ors
| ----Respondent | ||
|---|---|---|
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Rajeev Purohit |
|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. C.P. Soni |
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
14/03/2024
[2024:RJ-JD:12033]
[CR-52/2004]
(2 of 8)
[2024:RJ-JD:12033]
[CR-52/2004]
(3 of 8)
So far as the other issues are concerned, they were decided against defendant No.1 but this Court is not required to delve into the same as no appeal/revision has been preferred by defendant no.1 against the same.
Further, no challenge in the present revision petitions has been laid against the decision on Issue No.1 whereby it was struck off. Hence, this Court is not required to delve into the same too. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
[2024:RJ-JD:12033]
[CR-52/2004]
(4 of 8)
“ ्ቚ्ቓ ቕኍ�गण का तक� हैकिक यह बात कि�कि� � ाद हैकिक अपील केलቚኌ�त रह�ेके ा दौरा� कि��ाद्ቇ्ቜ भूकि का किह्ተ ा अंतरिरत कर किदया गयाहैतቕኍा उसका क्ቈ भीसौंप किदया गया हैअतः आदेश 22 कि�य 10 जा् ा दी�ा�ी ें्ቚा�धा�ोंके तहतप्ቌकारस �ुदेशीप्ቌकारब�ायेजा�ेयो्ቆ है। ”
Admittedly, the said order was passed on 09.04.1997 and even though, the applications for impleadment were rejected vide the said order but a bare perusal of the same reflects that plaintiff, at that point of time, had himself admitted the fact of possession been transferred to the subsequent purchasers (present defendant no.1). However, the present suit under Section 6 of the Act of
(5 of 8)
[2024:RJ-JD:12033]
[CR-52/2004]
1963 has been filed on 23.09.1999 alleging dispossession, which is in clear contravention to the mandate of the said provision whereby the suit is required to be filed within six months of dispossession.
(1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person [through whom he has been in possession or any person] claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit.
(4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof.”
Meaning thereby, Section 6(2)(a) of the Act of 1963 specifically provides that the suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Act of 1963 must be filed within six months of the date of dispossession and the same is clearly not the case in the present matter as the suit was filed after a much longer period than six months from the date of dispossession.
[2024:RJ-JD:12033]
[CR-52/2004]
(6 of 8)
within a period of six months immediately before filing of the suit. Section rules out enquiry as to title and the Court will act without jurisdiction if it goes into the issue of title and decides the suit based on the same.
“ In fact, in a suit under Section 6, the only question that has to be determined by the Court is whether the Plaintiff was in possession of the disputed property and he had been illegally dispossessed therefrom on any date within six months 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 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. Sub-Section 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. In fact, the above view has found expression in several pronouncements of this Court of which reference may be made to the decisions in Lallu Yashwant Singh (dead) by his L.Rs. v Rao Jagdish Singh and Ors. AIR 1968 SC 620, Krishna Ram Mahale (D) by L.Rs. v. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2097 and Sanjay Kumar Pandey and Ors. v. Gulabahar Sheikh and Ors. SCC 2004 (4) 664 In fact, para 4 of this Court's judgment passed in Sanjay Kumar Pandey (supra) may be a useful reiteration of the law in this regard. The same is, therefore, extracted hereinbelow:
4. A suit under section 6 of the Act is often called a summary suit inasmuch as the enquiry in the suit under Section 6 is confined to finding out the possession and dispossession within a period of six months from the date of the institution of the suit ignoring the question of title. Subsection (3) of Section 6 provides that no appeal shall lie
(7 of 8)
[2024:RJ-JD:12033]
[CR-52/2004]
from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section. No review of any such order or decree is permitted. The remedy of a person unsuccessful in a suit under Section 6 of the Act is to file a regular suit establishing his title to the suit property and in the event of his succeeding he will be entitled to recover possession of the property notwithstanding the adverse decision under Section 6 of the Act. Thus, as against a decision under Section 6 of the Act, the remedy of unsuccessful party is to file a suit based on title. The remedy of filing a revision is available but that is only by way of an exception; for the High Court would not interfere with a decree or order under Section 6 of the Act except on a case for interference being made out within the well-settled parameters of the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code. ”
“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.”
[2024:RJ-JD:12033]
[CR-52/2004]
(8 of 8)
handed over the possession of the property since the date of purchase itself. Further, it has been the specific admission of the plaintiff himself, as recorded in order dated 09.04.1997 (Exhibit-A/ 6), that property was sold out by Shri Gopal to defendant no.1 and thereby, possession was also transferred. On basis of the said admission, the learned Trial Court had reached to a conclusion that the present suit was not filed within six months from the date of dispossession and hence, the suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Act of 1963 was not maintainable.
(REKHA BORANA),J
249-250-SPhophaliya/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was within six months of dispossession as required by Section 6(2)(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?
Whether the Trial Court's finding that defendants were in possession since the date of purchase was correct?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
I.T.C. Ltd. vs. Adarsh Co-operative Housing Soc. Ltd.Relied on¶12
(2013) 10 SCC 169 · Who else cites this
Mohd. Mehtab Khan and Ors. vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim and Ors.Relied on¶13
(2013) 9 SCC 221 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Dev Kishan
Smt. Kamla Devi
Smt. Rekha Devi
Rekha Borana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
