Top Court refuses to interfere with concurrent findings based on facts and evidence on record; Dismisses appeal of owners who allegedly evicted respondent by use of force
Justices Vikram Nath & Satish Chandra Sharma [26-04-2024]

Read Order: SANJAY MARUTI JADHAV & ANR v. AMIT TATOBA SAWANT [SC- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 72 OF 2012]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, April 29, 2024: In a case of illegal dispossession of the respondent by the appellants from the property which was given to the respondent under a leave and licence agreement, the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeals challenging the judgments of the High Court and Trial Court ruling in favour of the respondent.

The appellants, in this case, are the owners of the property in question. Under the leave and licence agreement, the property in question was given to the respondent. However, the appellants were alleged to have illegally, unauthorizedly and by use of force, evicted the respondent. Within six months of dispossession, the respondent filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

The Trial Court decreed the suit after disbelieving the contentions raised by the appellants regarding voluntary handover of possession, relying upon a possession receipt. The appellant’s plea regarding the suit being not maintainable under Section 6 of the Act was also rejected.

The appellant preferred a revision before the High Court, which has since been dismissed by the impugned order. The High Court also found that the plea of maintainability of the suit raised by the appellant was without any merit and further concurred with the finding recorded by the Trial Court regarding the illegal dispossession of the respondent.

“Such concurrent findings, based upon the evidence on record and also being findings of fact, we do not find any merit in this appeal”, the Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held.

Thus, the appeal was dismissed.