Law in 100 Words | Part 15 | Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act; Speedy recovery of possession (Guest Post)

Section 6 of Specific Relief act, 1963 (hereinafter referred as SRA), obligates a court to provide summary relief to a person who is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property & without following the due process of law.

The object of Section 6 of SRA is to provide immediate and speedy relief to a person who has been unjustly and forcibly dispossessed.

Section 6 SRA suit can be filed by:

  1. A person dispossessed unlawfully;
  2. Any person claiming through the person dispossessed; and
  3. Any person through whom the person dispossessed was in possession.

Essential of Section 6 SRA are as follows:

  1. A person must be dispossessed of immovable property without his consent;
  2. He must be dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law;
  3. Issues of Title cannot be raised under S.6 SRA suit. All that is needed to be proved is : i) Possession; ii) dispossession otherwise than in accordance with law. In other words, even a real owner cannot dispossess another person without recourse of law and if the owner does it, she can be compelled to restore possession;
  4. No suit can be brought under this section against government of India;
  5. No suit can be brought after six months of dispossession;
  6. No appeal or review lies in any court of law of any order or decree passed under S.6 SRA. Only revision can be filed; that too exceptional cases;
  7. The person unsuccessful under S.6 SRA suit can file a regular suit establishing his title and in event of his succeeding, she is entitled to recover possession notwithstanding the adverse decision under S.6 SRA.
  8. The fresh suit will not be barred by Res-Judicata because in the suit under S.6 SRA the question of title had not been decided. 

Guest post by Ms.Sonali Gambhir, Advocate. She can be reached at sonali.gambhir96@gmail.com.

Suggested Readings:

  • Section 6 Specific Relief Act, 1963.
  • Poonam Ram v. Moti Ram (D) Th. Lrs. on 29th January, 2019.
  • East India Hotels Ltd v. Syndicate Bank 45 (1991) DLT 476 SCC. 
  • Sanjay Kumar Pandey v. Gulbahar Sheikh (2004) 4 SCC OnLine SC 425.
  • Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v.Charity Commr; AIR 2004 SC 1801. 
  • Mohd. Mehtab Khan v. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan, (2013) 9 SCC 221

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Comments (

1

)

  1. S R Agarwal

    Respected Sir,the know- the -law- in- 💯 -words -15th Series ,Guest post by Ms.Sonali Gambhir, Advocate empowers the readers with a very important provision relating to Immovable property.
    Kind Regards/SR

    Like

%d bloggers like this: