The Purpose and Import of Section 6 is to give quick and immediate relief to any person who has been dispossessed: HC while looking into Specific Relief Act [Read Judgment]

High Court of Delhi was dealing with the revision petition filed against impugned judgment dated 22nd September, 2021 passed by the Trial Court in which the suit of the Plaintiff has been decreed.

Brief Facts:

The case of the Plaintiff is that he is the owner of the West part of property No. A-40 Mansarovar Park, Shahdara, Delhi which was allegedly illegally broken into by the Defendant who was the owner of the remaining part of the suit property. The suit was filed under Sections 6 and 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking decree of declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction in relation to the suit property.

Trial Court’s Decision:

The Trial Court observed that the Plaintiff has been able to establish that the property was purchased from one Sh. Monu Aggarwal. The Trial Court also observed that the photograph placed on the record of the Trial Court clearly show that there was a wall which was erected between the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s portion which was demolished by the Defendant.

The Trial Court further stated that Sh. Monu Aggarwal was in possession of the suit property till 28th June 2001. Thereafter, the Plaintiff purchased the property from Sh. Monu Aggarwal and was using it for the purposes of residence of his mother till her death in the year 2006. The Plaintiff was not regularly residing in the property in question and he used to occasionally visit the suit property. The Trial Court directed the Defendant to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff and to restore the main door in front of the road along with the partition wall of the suit property.

Plaintiff’s Contention:

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that actual position was that one part of the property was in the possession of the Defendant, however, the suit property, i.e., 1/4th share of the property was in possession of the Plaintiff. He submitted that since the Plaintiff was not regularly residing in the suit property since 2006 and was residing in the neighbourhood, he used to visit the suit property every two three days, the Defendant took advantage of the same and blocked the front entrance of the suit property with a brick wall and broke the separating wall from the inside. It was further submitted that the Will of the original owner Sh. Harbans Singh whose title is not disputed by the Defendant itself shows that he had created four separate parts in the property.

Defendant’s Contention:

Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that mere electricity bills in the name of Sh. Monu Aggarwal would not be sufficient as there is no consumption of electricity shown in those bills. He submitted that from the electricity bill in the name of Mr. Monu Aggarwal, it is evident that not even a single unit of electricity was consumed which shows that the Plaintiff was not residing in the suit property. It was submitted that there are several litigations between the parties. It was also submitted that the said Will on which the reliance is placed by the Plaintiff is forged.

HC’s Observations:

The question before the Court was whether the plaintiff was illegally dispossessed by the defendant from the house built on 1/4th part of plot no. A-40 (Western portion) Mansarovar Park Delhi?

The Court observed that the issue in this petition is only on the final relief and not related to the contempt application. HC looked into the submission made by the defendant that since there is no consumption of electricity, it cannot be stated that the Plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. The Court stated that this has already been explained by the Plaintiff by stating that the he lives in the neighbourhood and his parents/ lastly his mother was living in the suit property. Under such circumstances, the mere fact that there was no electricity consumption in some recent period would not take away the fact that the separate property existed with the partition wall.

HC stated that in the digital era, the previous method of proving photographs by producing the negatives is no longer the process followed any more. The Court observed that the photographer himself has deposed in this case and has submitted before the Trial Court that he used a digital camera for taking the said photographs. Thus, the photographer’s testimony cannot be dislodged merely on the ground that negatives of the photographs were not produced.

The Court stated that thus, the question of facts raised before this Court by the Defendant cannot be analysed under revisional jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the evidence which has come on record and the photographs, all point to only one fact- that there was a separate partition delineated from the Plaintiff’s property which was sought to be merged by the Defendant into the Defendant’s property by breaking of a wall and by closing the entrance from the road.

The Court stated that the purpose and import of section 6 is to give quick and immediate relief to any person who has been dispossessed. The limitation is also, therefore, fixed as six months from the dispossession. The Court relied upon the case of Sanjay Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. Gulbahar Sheikh And Others, where SC held that “Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 is a provision to give immediate succour to the person who has been incorrectly dispossessed from the property which was under his possession.”

HC Held:

After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held “the intent of the legislature while enacting the said provision is also clear as no appeal from orders and decrees passed under Section 6 of the Act is provided. In view of the legislative bar placed by Section 6(3) of the Act no appeal/ review of the order/judgment can be entertained by this Court against the order passed by the Trial Court under section 6. The suit in this case was filed in 2010, it has taken 11 years for the suit for possession to be decided. The Court having perused the impugned judgment as also the evidence on record is of the opinion that this is not a case which warrants any interference under Section 115 CPC.”

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh

Case Title: Balwinder Singh v. Kamal Kishore

Case Details: C.R.P. 86/2021 & CM APPL. 42960/2021

The Purpose and Import of Section 6 is to give quick and immediate Relief to any person who has been dispossessed: HC while looking into Specific Relief Act [Read Judgment]