Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court: Question Of Title Or Better Right To Possession Is Immaterial During Proceedings To Claim Possession U/s. 6 SRA
|The Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court, which had dismissed a suit seeking a decree of declaration and permanent injunction.
The Delhi High Court explained that during the proceedings to claim possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA), the question of title or better right to possession is immaterial.
The Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court, which had dismissed the suit preferred by the Petitioner, seeking a decree of declaration and permanent injunction.
A Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan held, “Needless to say, even though the plaintiffs have not succeeded in the present claim, they are not precluded from seeking their remedies in a substantive suit based on title.”
Advocate AK Vali appeared for the Petitioners, while Advocate Rakesh Vatsa represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioners claimed that after the demise of their father, their mother started residing with her son-in-law. It was alleged that the Respondents, who were the brothers of the mother, forcibly trespassed on the Petitioner’s suit property. The Petitioners contended that the Respondents had no right, title or interest in the suit property.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court explained that “to claim possession under Section 6 of the SRA, the plaintiff is required to establish that he has been dispossessed from the suit property without his consent, otherwise than in due course of law. The limitation for preferring such a claim is six months from the date of dispossession and the question of title or better right to possession is immaterial in such proceedings.”
“It was noted that sale, as defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, provides that delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer in possession of the property and something more than handing over of title document is required to prove handing over of possession. While it is argued that the agreements to sell and possession letter have not been given due deference by the learned Trial Court, however, the said argument is without merit,” the Bench remarked.
“Having found none of the pleas raised by the petitioners to be convincing in regard to them having continuous possession of the suit property, the learned Trial Court also aptly dealt the arguments in relation to dispossession,” the Court stated.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no material irregularity or error in exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment so as to warrant interference of this Court.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Sonia Chhabra & Anr. v. Shanta Grover & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:4013)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates A.K. Vali, Bhaskar Vali and Sushant Shankar
Respondents: Advocate Rakesh Vatsa