Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Narbada Devi And Anr vs Shanker Lal And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:8701) on 12 February, 2025
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
[2025:RJ-JD:8701]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 10/2006
1. Narbada Devi W/o Jamna Lal Lohar aged about 40 years R/o
Salumber, district Udaipur.
2. Fateh Singh S/o Shri Vishan Singh Rajput R/o Kargeta, Tehsil
Salumber, district Udaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Shanker Lal S/o Shri Gowanji Lohar R/o Salumber, district
Udaipur.
2. Shri Laxmi Lal S/o Shri Shankar Lal Lohar R/o Salumber,
district Udaipur.
3. Shri Kanti Lal S/o Shri Shankar Lal Lohar R/o Salumber,
district Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Shrimali.
Mr. Rishabh Shrimali.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Shishodia, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Deepesh Birla
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
12/02/2025
1. Heard the parties.
2. The plaintiffs/respondents brought case No.18/2004 under
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act which has been decreed by the
impugned judgment dated 25.11.2005.
3. Contention of the defendants/petitioners is that the trial
court has exceeded in exercise of its jurisdiction and has decided
so many issues; including issue of title, which was not permissible
under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
4. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act reads as follows:-
[2025:RJ-JD:8701] (2 of 4) [CR-10/2006]
"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 [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.
(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."
5. The learned trial judge framed following issues:-
Issue No.1- Whether the plaintiffs were in
possession of the property mentioned in column No. 12
of the plaint measuring 27 x 50 feet before 13.06.2001
and was dispossessed by the defendant illegally though
defendant No.2 had no property left thereat after he
sold his share to some other person.
Submission is that only the aforesaid issue could
have been decided under Section 6 of the Specific
Relief Act, however, the learned trial judge clubbed two
more issues with issue No.1 and took up altogether 8
material issues which read as follows:-
Issue No.2- Whether the property mentioned in
column No.3 was divided by the referred persons and
was converted from agricultural land to residential land
[2025:RJ-JD:8701] (3 of 4) [CR-10/2006]
and remaining property, measuring 90 x 100 = 9,000
square feet remained with the plaintiffs.
Issue No.3 - Whether plaintiffs sold some of the
portion of the property to different persons and the
southern - most portion, measuring 90 X 50 feet
referred in column No.6 of the plaint remained with the
plaintiffs.
Issue No.4 - Whether plaintiff No.1 had issued
authority in favour of Jaichand in respect of property
mentioned in column No.7 and the act of plaintiff No.1
was not affecting the right of plaintiff Nos.2, 3 and 4.
Issue No.5 - Whether the adjoining land is more
than 9,000 square feet and the plaintiff had only 6,000
square feet.
Issue No. 6 - Whether the people referred in
column 12 where only Khatedars of the suit property.
Issue No. 7 - Whether all the four plaintiffs had
sold 6280 square feet, whereas, the plaintiffs were in
possession of 12405 square feet.
Issue no.8 - Whether the suit was filed within a
period of limitation of six months."
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the main
issue No.1 was decided against the respondents and in favour of
the plaintiffs, therefore, decision on other issues may be ignored
because the trial court has found that the plaintiffs were
dispossessed from the referred area of the plot within six months.
7. As per provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the
suit for recovery of possession when the plaintiffs were
[2025:RJ-JD:8701] (4 of 4) [CR-10/2006]
dispossessed within six months of bringing the suit would confine
to adjudication, whether the plaintiffs were in possession within
six months of the suit over the land from which the plaintiffs were
forcefully dispossessed. The Court exercising jurisdiction under
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act cannot go beyond that.
8. Hence, the impugned judgment stands hereby set aside and
the matter is remitted back to the learned trial judge to decide the
suit afresh according to law.
9. Accordingly, this civil revision petition stands disposed of.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
1-suraj/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
