Read Order: Raghbir Singh and Another v. Harpal Singh and Another 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, May 10, 2022: In a revision petition filed by the petitioners (originally plaintiffs) against the order of the Trial Court dismissing the suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA), the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the petitioners were well within their rights to claim possession on the basis of the title, however, such matter can be decided only by filing a regular suit.

The Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal also held that for decreeing a Section 6 SRA suit, the plaintiff is required to prove his forcible dispossession within a period of six months, prior to the filing of the suit. 

Essentially, in this case, the plaintiffs’ suit under Section 6 of the SRA for grant of decree of possession was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiffs claimed that they were owners of the land comprised in khasra no.134 whereas land comprised in khasra no.107 was a public passage. The plaintiffs also claimed that the defendants encroached upon the aforesaid passage as well as some part of the land that they owned (khasra no.134). 

The trial court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their forcible dispossession within a period of 6 months prior to the filing of the suit. 

The counsel representing the petitioners drew the attention of the Court to the report of demarcation wherein it was recorded that the defendants encroached upon the land comprised in khasra no.107 (public passage) and also in the land owned by the plaintiffs. 

The Court observed at the very outset that the suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is summary in nature and for decreeing such suit, the plaintiff is required to prove his forcible dispossession within a period of six months, prior to the filing of the suit. 

Further, from the perusal of the Trial Court decision, the High Court noted that the lower court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to prove their forcible dispossession. 

The counsel representing the petitioners contended that the petitioners being the owners, were entitled to possession.

Addressing this argument, the Court opined that the petitioners were well within their rights to claim possession on the basis of the title, however, such matter can be decided only by filing a regular suit. 

Thus, keeping in view of the aforesaid facts, the revision petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a regular suit. 

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment