Title For Ownership Cannot Be Adjudicated In A Suit For Recovery Of Possession U/s. 6 Specific Relief Act: Jharkhand HC

The Court affirmed the Trial Court’s Order which rejected the application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the CPC. “The dispute which is between the parties whether the property in question had been partitioned before executing the agreement to sell, in favour of the plaintiff in suit by one of the co-sharer, same has no bearing while deciding the suit under Section 6 for Specific Relief Act,” the Bench noted.

A Single Bench of Justice Subhash Chand observed, “Admittedly, the suit was for recovery of the possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. It is the settled law that in a suit under Section 6 for the Specific Relief Act, the title for ownership in regard to the property in question is not to be adjudicated. The dispute which is between the parties whether the property in question had been partitioned before executing the agreement to sell, in favour of the plaintiff in suit by one of the co-sharer, same has no bearing while deciding the suit under Section 6 for Specific Relief Act.”

Advocate Rahul Kr. Gupta represented the Petitioners, while Advocate Praveen Akhouri appeared for the Opposite Parties.

The Opposite parties relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) by LRs. v. Ramesh Chander Agarwal (2003) wherein it was held that the question of title of ownership was not to be decided in a suit under Section 6 for the Specific Relief Act.

The High Court noted that the dispute between the parties was that the property in question originally was the property of joint ownership and joint possession and one of the co-sharers, had executed the agreement to sell as alleged by the plaintiff of the original suit and possession of the same was also delivered to the plaintiff of the suit.

“In this very suit, only the two issues are to be decided by the learned Trial Court, firstly, whether the plaintiff of the suit no. 14 of 2021 was in possession of the property in suit? Secondly, whether the plaintiff of the suit has been dispossessed from the property in question by force without adopting due course of law? This dispute is to be decided between the plaintiff and the defendant of the suit,” the Court remarked.

“The petitioner who have come herein having assailed the order which was passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure pleading themselves to be the co-sharer of the property in question and have also pleaded that the very property in question being of joint possession and joint ownership, they were necessary parties. This plea is not tenable taking into consideration the issues which are to be decided between the parties,” the Court observed.

Consequently, the Court held, “The impugned order passed by the learned Court below bears no infirmity and this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is hereby dismissed. The impugned order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Ist, Khunti in Original Suit No. 141 of 2021 is affirmed.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Randhir Kumar & Anr. v. Budhdeo Kumar Kashyap & Ors.

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates Rahul Kr. Gupta, Rakesh Kr. Singh, Swati Singh and Surya Prakash

Opposite Parties: Advocates Praveen Akhouri, Mohini Gupta and Aayush Jha

Click here to read/download the Order