LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Sukjeet Singh Vs Sirajunnisa: Section 6 Of The Act Becomes Applicable Only When The Plaintiff Is Dispossessed Without His Consent

Prahalad B ,
  08 October 2021       Share Bookmark

Court :
High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Brief :

Citation :
Civil Revision No.2508 of 1999

Crux:
Section 6 Of The Act Becomes Applicable Only When The Plaintiff Is Dispossessed Without His Consent.

Date of Judgement:
09.06.2000

Coram:
Justice Dipak Misra

Parties:
Appellant – Sukhjeet Singh
Respondent – Sirajunnisa

Subject

Suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act can be allowed only when it is proved that the applicant was forcibly dispossessed without his consent.

Legal Provisions

  • Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – 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 personclaiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit.

Overview

  • The facts of the case are that there were two blocks in the house owned by the appellant/defendant. The respondent resided in the south block of the house for rent and the appellant residing in the remaining portion. It was alleged by the respondent that the appellant had requested to handover the possession temporarily for conducting a marriage ceremony and would return once the ceremony was over. After one and half months, the respondent did not handover the possession back to appellant.
  • The respondent contended that he has been dispossessed from the property without due process of law and therefore filed a suit for specific performance under Section 6 of the Act.
  • On the other hand, the appellant argued that he was not forcibly dispossessed as the possession was handed over by the respondent on request.

Issue

  • Whether the respondent was dispossessed without the consent and without the due process of law?

Judgement Analysis

  • This court held that when the delivery of possession was handed over, there was ad idem between the parties. Hence, both of them were aware of the consequences of their action. There was no “forceful dispossession” as alleged by the applicant for specific performance.
  • The court referring to Onama Glass Works v. Shri Ram Harak Pandey (1966) held in a suit filed under Section 6 of the Act that the court cannot delve into whether the transaction was valid or whether the applicant was deceived as it will be dealt in a regular suit which cannot come under Section 6. It can only inspect whether there was wrongful dispossession of the applicant.

Conclusion

Section 6 of the Act provides for relief for person dispossessed of an immovable property. While the court can deal with whether there was forceful or wrongful dispossession of the applicant, it cannot delve into matters which can be decided in a regular suit.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement

 
"Loved reading this piece by Prahalad B?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"



Published in Others
Views : 428




Comments






Latest Judgments


More »


Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query