INTRODUCTION

The Specific Relief Act of 1963 has taken care of a significant number of legal remedies. In general, substantive law, which establishes rights and obligations, frequently provides remedies. For instance, the remedy of damages for contract violation is provided under contract law. Even civil law must protect some rights, and these rights are constrained to custody of the property. The Specific Relief Act is concerned with civil rights rather than criminal laws. A piece of property may be movable or immovable.

Methods for regaining custody of particular immovable property are provided in Sections 5 and 6 of the Specific Relief Act of 1963. A person who is entitled to ownership of any specified immovable property may reclaim it in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, according to Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act of 1963. (5 of 1908) Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act deals with the provision related to suit by person dispossessed of immovable property. According to section 6, possession refers to legal possession, which can be present with or without real possession and with or without legitimate origin. In a case brought under section 6, the plaintiff is not required to prove title.

SECTION 6 OF SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963

Suit by persons dispossessed of immovable property

(1) Any individual who has been unlawfully dispossessed from immovable property without his agreement may file a lawsuit to regain possession of it, regardless of any other claims to the property that may be made in the lawsuit.

(2) No action shall be instituted under this section.

•          six months have passed from the date of possession; or

•          in opposition to the government.

(3) No judgment entered in a proceeding brought under this section may be appealed, and no review of such judgment may be permitted.

(4) This clause does not prohibit someone from filing a lawsuit to prove their ownership of the property and reclaim possession.

SECTION 6 IS ONLY APPLICABLE IF THE PLAINTIFF PROVES:

1. That he has legal ownership of the in question real estate.

2. That he had been ejected from his home without his permission and without the proper legal procedures.

3. That the possession was taken within six months of the lawsuit’s filing.

RAMANLAL AMBALAL PATEL V. HINA INDUSTRIES [(1993) 1 GLR 820]

In this case, the opposing party filed a lawsuit seeking a decision awarding ownership of the sought-after property as well as a Notice of Motion seeking a number of temporary restraining orders. After then, the opposing party filed Chamber Summons Exh. 80/81 asking for authorization to alter the plaint in order to include a remedy for possession of the subject property under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act of 1963.

According to the allegations, the opponent was entitled to reclaim control of the suit property under Section 6 of the Act because the lawsuit was filed within six months of the property’s repossession. The lower Court allowed the opponent to implement the modification as suggested by the opponent.

The question before the court was whether the Plaintiff who files a claim for possession and for the eviction of the Defendant on the basis of title but is unable to establish his title is still entitled to a decree for possession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, if he can establish possession within six months prior to the date of his dispossession?

The court found that Section 5 of the Act, which corresponds to Section 8 of the 1877 Act, would undoubtedly apply to the current case. Sections 8 and 9 of the 1877 Act provide alternate remedies that are mutually exclusive, and the plaintiff cannot combine both remedies in a single lawsuit. In order to minimize duplication of efforts, it was stated that amendments could not be approved. As a result, the opponent’s amendment application was turned down.

NAGARPALIKA JIND V. JAGAT SINGH [AIR 1995 SC 1377]

The respondent filed a lawsuit to prevent the appellant from meddling with the respondent’s possession of the subject property. The appellant disputed the claim, claiming respondent had committed unauthorized encroachments. According to Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act, the respondent made a claim for the property by stating his ownership of it and prior possession of it. He was unable to demonstrate his ownership of the property and the appellant’s possession of it. The court ordered the appellant to pursue further action regarding the suit land, to which the respondent did not have title but was in possession.

BRIJ KUMAR V. BIMLA RANI [2006 (3) BomCR 857]

District Judge ruled that because the Trial Court had determined the lawsuit in accordance with Section 6 of the Act, Additional District Judge would not have the authority to preside over a revision, and the appeal was ineligible. In this case, the question was whether the Additional Sessions Judge’s order was correct. It was decided that once the plaintiff voluntarily left the partnership, the revision applicants, who were in possession with him as his partners, had the right to seek dispossession. It was clear that the original Plaintiff and the revision applicants shared possession, and a third party who was not in possession had not violently taken possession in order to evict Plaintiff. Trial Court could only have ordered the eviction of these partners in accordance with Section 6 of the Act, at most restoring the original Plaintiff’s possession along with the revision applicants/partners. As a result, the Additional District Judge’s decision in the appeal was overturned, and it was decided that any decision made by a higher authority that violates the law would not stand.

CONCLUSION

No appeal shall lie against any decision or decree in any litigation brought under this section, and no review of such order or decree shall be permitted. Section 6 was created to swiftly address issues (3). This makes it very obvious that only revisions as permitted by Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are permitted once an order or decree has been issued under this section. The aggrieved party may nevertheless file a lawsuit under Section 5 to recover property on the basis of title, despite the initiation of the action under this section. Both Sections 5 and 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 provide alternative remedies, but they are mutually incompatible. Under Section 5, a person who has been displaced may regain possession based on title, but Section 6 allows a displaced person to do so by demonstrating prior ownership and subsequent unjust dispossession.

REFERENCE:

• AVTAR SINGH, LAW OF CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF (12th ed.), EASTERN BOOK COMPANY.

• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1773715/

• https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-5598-law-relating-to-recovery-of-possession-of-property-under-specific-relief-act-1963.html

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.

Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at secondinnings.hr@gmail.com

In the year 2021, we wrote about 1000 Inspirational Women In India, in the year 2022, we would be featuring 5000 Start Up Stories