Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act

Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 states that a court must give quick relief to someone who has been forcibly removed from their property without their agreement and without going through the proper legal procedures.

What is Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

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.

Essentials of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

The essential elements of Section 6 are:

• Dispossession without consent: If a person is forcefully removed from their immovable property without giving their agreement or permission.
• Dispossession outside legal procedures: The removal must be done unlawfully, without following the proper legal process.
• Right to file a lawsuit: If the above conditions are met, the person who was dispossessed or anyone claiming ownership through them has the right to file a legal case to regain possession of the property.

Any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property

When a person is forcefully deprived of their immovable property without their agreement, there are certain aspects to consider:

Judicial possession and lack of consent: The plaintiff needs to prove that they had legal possession of the property, and the defendant took possession without their consent.

“Any person claiming through him”: This includes cases where a landlord’s tenant is dispossessed by someone else. The landlord is considered to have legal possession of the tenanted property through their tenant.

Exclusion of voluntarily transferred possession: It’s important to note that Section 6 only applies to cases where the plaintiff is unlawfully dispossessed. If the plaintiff has given consent to the defendant to take possession or voluntarily transferred possession, Section 6 does not apply, and they cannot file a lawsuit under this section.

For example, in the case of Sukhjeet Singh v. Sirajunnisa, the tenant willingly handed over possession of the premises to the landlord for his son’s marriage. However, the landlord failed to return possession after the marriage. In this situation, even though the tenant may have been deceived later on, they cannot claim possession again under Section 6 because the section does not apply when possession is voluntarily transferred.

He must be dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law

Section 6 requires that the plaintiff must be dispossessed of the property without adhering to the proper legal process. Therefore, if the plaintiff is unlawfully dispossessed, they can file a lawsuit under this section.

In the case of K. Verma v. Union of India, the Bombay High Court held that even after the expiry of the tenancy period, the possession of a tenant is considered legal possession. Hence, the owner cannot forcefully evict the tenant without following the legal procedure.

Purpose of Section 6

The purpose of Section 6 is to prevent the use of force for dispossession without the consent of the person and without following the legal procedure.

Scope of Section 6

Section 6 does not involve an inquiry into ownership. The court focuses solely on evidence of possession. Therefore, even if the defendant has a stronger claim to the property, they cannot resist the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of possession if the plaintiff can prove their allegations.

Determining possession in a suit: In a suit under Section 6, the court’s only task is to determine whether the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed property and whether they were illegally dispossessed within six months prior to filing the suit.

Juridical possession and unlawful dispossession: For Section 6 to apply, the plaintiff must have possessory rights on the date of eviction. This means that the plaintiff must have actual possession with the intention to maintain it, and not be a mere trespasser squatting on the property.

Protection against forcible dispossession: The protection provided by the court is not for possession itself but rather against forcible dispossession. The relief is based on the principle that even with the best claim to ownership, one cannot be forcefully dispossessed.

Landlord’s right to file suit: If a landlord, who had possession through a tenant, is dispossessed when the tenant is evicted, they are entitled to seek a remedy under Section 6.

Grievance against State Government possession: When the State Government takes possession, the petitioner cannot raise a complaint until they establish a better title to the property and become entitled to possession.

Reclaiming possession of gratuitously granted property: If possession of a property was granted gratuitously, the owner has the right to reclaim possession, even without the knowledge of the person in possession.

Proof of possession and dispossession: Under Section 6, the plaintiff only needs to prove their prior possession and dispossession by the defendant within six months from the date of the suit. This remedy is supplementary and does not prevent the dispossessed party from asserting their title in an ordinary court of law, even if the suit is filed beyond six months.

Protection of possession under contract for sale: If the plaintiff is in possession of the property as part of a contract for sale and meets the requirements of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, they can protect their possession against the true owner. Therefore, if the person in possession has been inducted by the rightful owner and peacefully occupies the property, they are entitled to protect their possession until lawfully dispossessed by someone with better title.

Who Can File a Suit?

Before the Amendment Act of 2018, Section 6 of the Act allowed a person who was forcibly removed from actual possession, or someone claiming through them, to file a lawsuit for such dispossession. However, the owner, their agent, or other authorized individuals could not file a lawsuit to recover the property if the tenant or lessee, who had possession of the property, was dispossessed. 

Through the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act of 2018, a significant change was made. It granted the title holder of immovable property, as well as their agent or authorized representative, the right to sue for the recovery of possession of immovable property. This right is now available to them in the same manner as it was previously available to a person who derived possession through them, such as a tenant or mortgagee.

In the case of Mahabir Prasad Jain v. Ganga Singh, the Supreme Court established that a person seeking equitable relief under the Specific Relief Act must approach the court with clean hands. In this particular case, the tenant who was being sued for possession failed to provide evidence of his tenancy. Instead, he initiated multiple proceedings with inconsistent allegations against the landlord within a short period of time. 

The court deemed this behavior as an abuse of the legal process, indicating that the tenant did not approach the court with clean hands. As a result, the tenant was not entitled to any equitable relief under the Specific Relief Act.

Limitation Period For Suit

It is important to note that there is a specific time limit for filing a lawsuit under Section 6, which is 6 months. If a suit is filed after this 6-month period, relief is typically not granted, unless there is a reasonable ground for the delay and the court is satisfied with that explanation. In such cases, the court has the discretion to consider and potentially condone the delay if there is a valid reason provided.

No Suit Against The Government

Under Section 6(2) of the Specific Relief Act, it is worth noting that no suit can be filed against the State or Government. Therefore, if a person is dispossessed of their immovable property by the State, they cannot initiate a legal action under the Specific Relief Act. This provision prohibits such suits against the State or Government.

No Appeal/Review From Order/Decree Passed Under Section 6

Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act states that no appeal can be filed from any order or decree issued in a suit filed under Section 6. Furthermore, it prohibits the review of any such order or decree.

In the case of Vanita M. Khansalkar v Pranga M Pai, the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether the bar on appeals from orders passed under Section 6(3) applies to a Letters Patent Appeal from an order issued by a single judge to the Division Bench of the High Court. The court ruled that the prohibition on appeals and revisions under Section 6(3) does not apply to Letters Patent Appeals.

In summary, while Section 6(3) prevents appeals and reviews of orders or decrees in suits filed under Section 6, it does not extend to Letters Patent Appeals in the specific context mentioned in the case.

No Bar On A Person From Instituting A Suit To Establish His Title To Immovable Property And To Recover The Possession of The Same

Section 6 does not prevent any person from filing a regular lawsuit based on their ownership rights for the immovable property and seeking to regain possession, even if a suit filed under Section 6(1) of the Act has been decided against them. In other words, the outcome of a suit filed under Section 6(1) does not bar a person from pursuing a separate lawsuit based on their title to the property to seek possession.

Conclusion

Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 encompasses several key provisions regarding the dispossession of immovable property without consent and without following legal procedures. The essentials of Section 6 require the plaintiff to prove that they were dispossessed without their consent and outside the due course of law.

 The section allows the plaintiff or anyone claiming through them to file a lawsuit to recover possession of the property. It is important to note that Section 6 does not apply if the plaintiff voluntarily transferred possession or gave consent to the defendant. The section focuses on evidence of possession and does not delve into the issue of title.