Jharkhand High Court Rules Ownership Title Not to Be Decided Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act
The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that the title for ownership in regard to the property in question is not to be adjudicated under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Justice Subhash Chand, in his dismissal of a Civil Miscellaneous Petition challenging a trial court's rejection of an application for impleadment, emphasized, “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.”
The petitioner sought to be impleaded as a defendant in an ongoing Original Suit before the Trial Court. The suit was initiated by the plaintiff to regain possession of a property from which they were allegedly forcefully dispossessed without following due legal procedures. The petitioner argued that they were a co-sharer in the disputed property, claiming joint ownership and possession. Additionally, they contended that the agreement to sell, upon which the plaintiff based their claim of possession, was invalid because no partition had occurred, and therefore, no specific portion of the property could have been lawfully transferred.
Rejecting these arguments, the High Court noted that the issues in such suits are confined to two main points: “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.” Citing the case of Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) by LRs. & Anr. vs. Ramesh Chander Agarwal & Ors., the Court emphasized, “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.”
Considering the scope of the issues to be decided between the plaintiff and defendant in the Original Suit, the Court concluded that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party. Therefore, the High Court affirmed, “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.”
Cause Title: Randhir Kumar vs Budhdeo Kumar Kashyap And Ors
Case No: CMP No. 1026 of 2022
Date: November-18-2024
Bench: Justice Subhash Chand
[Read/Download order]
