Date of the Judgment: 26 April 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 345
Judges: Vikram Nath, J. and Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
Can a person who has been illegally evicted from a property regain possession through legal means? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, affirming the rights of individuals dispossessed unlawfully. The court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, emphasizing the importance of protecting possessory rights. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
Case Background
The appellants in this case were the owners of a property that they had given to the respondent under a leave and license agreement. However, the appellants allegedly evicted the respondent illegally, using force. The respondent, within six months of being dispossessed, filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking restoration of possession. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the respondent, disbelieving the appellants’ claim that the respondent had voluntarily handed over possession. The Trial Court also rejected the appellants’ contention that the suit was not maintainable under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| [Date not specified in document] | Property given to the respondent under leave and license agreement. |
| [Date not specified in document] | Appellants allegedly illegally and forcefully evicted the respondent. |
| Within 6 months of dispossession | Respondent filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. |
| [Date not specified in document] | Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent. |
| [Date not specified in document] | High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellants. |
| 18.01.2024 | Supreme Court reserved orders. |
| 26.04.2024 | Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court had ruled in favor of the respondent, disbelieving the appellants’ claim of voluntary handover of possession and relying on a possession receipt. The appellants then filed a revision petition before the High Court, which was also dismissed. The High Court concurred with the Trial Court’s finding that the respondent was illegally dispossessed and also rejected the appellants’ plea regarding the maintainability of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Legal Framework
The core legal provision at play in this case is Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. This section allows a person who has been dispossessed of immovable property to recover possession, provided they file a suit within six months of the dispossession. The section states:
“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 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.”
This provision is designed to provide a quick remedy for those who have been illegally dispossessed, allowing them to regain possession without having to prove their title to the property.
Arguments
The appellants argued that the suit was not maintainable under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. They contended that the respondent had voluntarily handed over possession of the property. The appellants also challenged the Trial Court’s findings of fact.
The respondent, on the other hand, argued that they were illegally dispossessed by the appellants and that the suit was rightly decreed by the Trial Court. The respondent relied on the possession receipt and the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
| Appellants’ Submissions | Respondent’s Submissions |
|---|---|
| Suit not maintainable under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. | Suit was rightly decreed by the Trial Court. |
| Respondent voluntarily handed over possession. | Respondent was illegally dispossessed by the appellants. |
| Challenged the Trial Court’s findings of fact. | Relied on the possession receipt and the concurrent findings of the lower courts. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame any issues in the judgment. However, the primary issue before the court was whether the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court regarding the illegal dispossession of the respondent and the maintainability of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 were valid.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court regarding illegal dispossession were valid. | The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, finding no merit to interfere with the factual findings. |
| Whether the suit was maintainable under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. | The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that the suit was indeed maintainable under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in its judgment. The decision was based on the factual findings of the lower courts and the interpretation of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
| Authority | How it was used |
|---|---|
| Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 | The Court interpreted and applied the provision to the facts of the case, affirming that the suit was rightly filed under this provision. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ claim that the suit was not maintainable under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. | Rejected. The Court agreed with the lower courts that the suit was maintainable. |
| Appellants’ contention that the respondent voluntarily handed over possession. | Rejected. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the respondent was illegally dispossessed. |
The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, stating that these were findings of fact based on the evidence on record. The Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. The Supreme Court emphasized that it would not interfere with factual findings that were supported by evidence. The Court also focused on the purpose of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which is to provide a quick remedy for those who have been illegally dispossessed of their property.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Upholding concurrent findings of fact | 60% |
| Importance of quick remedy under Section 6 | 40% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed unless there is a clear error or perversity. The Court also emphasized the importance of protecting possessory rights and providing a quick remedy for illegal dispossession.
“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 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.”
“Under the leave and licence agreement, the property in question was given to the respondent. However, the appellants are alleged to have illegally, unauthorizedly and by use of force, evicted the respondent.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ A person dispossessed of immovable property can file a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to recover possession, provided the suit is filed within six months of dispossession.
- ✓ Courts will generally uphold concurrent findings of fact by lower courts if they are based on evidence on record.
- ✓ The purpose of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is to provide a quick remedy for illegal dispossession, protecting possessory rights.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The judgment reinforces the established legal position regarding the rights of individuals dispossessed of immovable property and the remedies available under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The ratio decidendi of the case is that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, when based on evidence, should not be interfered with by higher courts, and that Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides a summary remedy for illegal dispossession.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Sanjay Maruti Jadhav & Anr. vs. Amit Tatoba Sawant reaffirms the importance of protecting possessory rights and providing a quick remedy for illegal dispossession. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, emphasizing that factual findings supported by evidence should not be disturbed. This judgment underscores the significance of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in ensuring that individuals are not unlawfully deprived of their possession of immovable property.