Jhunjhunu Raj v. Karmari Village papurna Tehsil Khetri District Jhunjhunu

Judgment

1. Bhata Ram S/o Khagaram, aged 66 years R/o Dhani Karmari Village papurna Tehsil Khetri District Jhunjhunu Raj

2. Papuda S/o Bhata Ram, aged 46 years R/o Dhani Karmari Village papurna Tehsil Khetri District Jhunjhunu Raj

Smt. Gyarsi Devi W/o Sh. Bhataram, aged 63 years R/o Dhani Karmari Village Dpapurna Tehsil Khetri District Jhunjhunu Raj ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.P. Kaushik For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Sharma for Mr. Ravi Shankar Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 08/01/2025

1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioners plaintiffs aggrieved from dismissal of civil suit no. 45/2007 on 20.09.2013 by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Khetri, District Jhunjhunu under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, filed for permanent and mandatory injunction with possession.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners were dispossessed by defendants forcibly using muscle power on

05.12.2007. He also submits that the plaintiffs petitioners were in settled possession over the suit property but without adopting any [2025:RJ-JP:1556] (2 of 6) [CR-2/2014] legal process petitioners were dispossessed by the defendants and to procure the possession they have filed a suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act but learned trial court without considering analogy behind object behind filing of such suit has dismissed the suit. He further submitted that the trial court was required to enquire about dispossession on date mentioned by the plaintiffs but trial court travelled beyond the scope of suit and adjudicated about the legal title of the suit property. He also referred the findings recorded by the trial court and submitted that the trial court has committed serious error while ignoring the material and evidence on record. At last, he submitted that he has not having option to file regular appeal, therefore, he has filed instant revision petition.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent(s) and he submitted that the petitioners plaintiffs have filed a civil suit based on false and fabricated facts and trial court has rightly dismissed the same. He also submitted that the suit property never remained in possession of petitioner plaintiffs and respondents are title holder of the property.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Brief facts of the case are, the Petitioners-Prahlad and Dulichand have filed a civil suit on 20.12.2007 under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act stating that they were in possession of suit property mentioned in Para no.2 but on 05.12.2007 they were dispossessed by the defendants. The plaintiffs have claimed possession over the suit property. The defendants had denied averment of the plaint and alleged dispossession of plaintiff. They [2025:RJ-JP:1556] (3 of 6) [CR-2/2014] have further mentioned that the suit property is part of Khasra no. 2576 and same is Government property and Government is a necessary party.

6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, four issues were framed. Four witnesses were examined and 5 documents were exhibited by the plaintiffs whereas four witnesses were examined by defendants and 10 documents were exhibited. The plaintiff has examined himself in rebuttal.

7. Learned trial court while considering issue no. 1 has observed that admittedly the property is in possession of defendant and on earlier occasion there was a compromise between the parties. The trial court has decided issue no. 1 against the plaintiffs which resulted into dismissal of suit of plaintiffs.

8. In case of Sudhir Jaggi and Anr. Vs. Sunil Akash Sinha and Ors. 2004 (7) SCC 515 Hon’ble Supreme Court on the basis of facts in a suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act observed that there is no substantial question of law arising in first appeal and there is no evidence on record in support of defendant and in case of Sanjay Kumar Pandey and Ors. Vs. Gulbahar Sheikh and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 3354 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the remedy of a person unsuccessful in a suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act is to file a regular civil suit establishing his title to the suit property. The scope of Section 6 of Specific Relief Act was further considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Asgari and Anr. Vs. Shiv Charan Lal through LRs 2003 WLC (Raj.) UC 344, and Arya Samaj Shri Karanpur Vs. Prithvi Raj and Anr.2004 (4) WLC (Raj.) 244. [2025:RJ-JP:1556] (4 of 6) [CR-2/2014]

9. The object of Section 6 of Specific Relief Act is to ensure speedy remedy to a person who has been unjustly and forcibly dispossessed. The suit under this provision can be filed by: (i) A person dispossessed unlawfully, (ii) Any person claiming through person dispossessed, and (iii) Any person through whom a person dispossessed was in possession.

10. After considering the judgments and legal position on Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, the essential ingredients can be summarized as under: (i) A person must be dispossessed of immovable property without his consent; (ii) He must be dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law; (iii) Issues on title or ownership or rival contention cannot be raised in a suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act; (iv) A suit can be brought within six months of dispossession, an order or decree passed by a civil court is final and no appeal or review can lie in any court of law; (v) Only remedy is filing revision petition and that too in exceptional cases; (vi) A fresh suit on general terms is not barred by resjudicata as no inquiry is permissible on question of title in a suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act; (vii) A person unsuccessful in a suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act has a remedy to file a regular suit on the basis of title or any other claim. If he or she is successful in subsequent suit then [2025:RJ-JP:1556] (5 of 6) [CR-2/2014] entitled for all relied notwithstanding the adverse possession in a suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act.

11. After considering the legal position and record of the case, I am of the considered view that there was a serious dispute with regard to possession on the suit property on date mentioned by the petitioners plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and his witnesses have claimed that the building material lying on disputed land belongs to plaintiffs whereas defendants have claimed that it was their material. The dispute arose when defendants started raising construction and plaintiff feeling aggrieved of dispossession has filed a suit. In a suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, only question relating to possession and dispossession are required to be considered and there is no scope of enquiry about title of the suit property. Herein this case, the trial court has considered several documents produced by both the parties. The defendants have claimed their possession much prior to claim of plaintiffs.

12. The scope of instant suit is too narrow and after dismissal of suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, the petitioners plaintiffs are at liberty to file a regular suit establishing their title or any other ground, if available under the law.

13. Considering the entire material on record and also the scope of Section 6 as discussed hereinabove, I am of the considered view that there is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court, therefore, there is no scope of interference in the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Thus, the revision petition sans merit and is liable to be dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:1556] (6 of 6) [CR-2/2014]

14. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed and the judgment and decree dated

20.09.2013 is hereby affirmed.

15. No order as to costs. CHETNA BEHRANI /7 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J