Bhanwaru Khan alias Rasul Khan vs Mumtaj

Pratap Krishna Lohra, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. By the instant revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6th July, 2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Abu Road, Sirohi, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner in an appeal of the respondent-defendant under, Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, ''the Act of 1963'') was rejected by the learned Appellate Court.

By the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court u/s 6(1) of the Act of 1963 it has not only restored the possession of the petitioner back in the disputed property but has further granted him relief of declaration declaring him owner of the property.

The legal position is no more res integra that suit u/s 6(1) of the Act of 1963 is tried as a summary suit and it is confined to relief of restoration of possession, if an incumbent has been dispossessed from the immovable property.

The complete text of Section 6 is reproduced as infra:--

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.

In this view of the matter, relief u/s 6 of the Act of 1963 cannot be granted for the purpose of declaration of an individual as owner of the disputed property.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Pandey and Others Vs. Gulbahar Sheikh and Others, The Apex Court, in the said case, while examining Section 6 of the Act of 1963 has held in clear and unequivocal terms that suit u/s 6 of the Act of 1963 is to be tried summarily and it is confined to finding out the possession and dispossession within a period of six months from the date of institution of the suit ignoring the question of title. Para 4 of the said judgment is as infra:--

A suit u/s 6 of the Act is often called a summary suit inasmuch as the enquiry in the suit u/s 6 is confined to finding out the possession and dispossession within a period of six months from the date of the institution of the suit ignoring the question of title. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 provides that no appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this Section. No review of any such order or decree is permitted. The remedy of a person unsuccessful in a suit u/s 6 of the Act is to file a regular suit establishing his title to the suit property and in the event of his succeeding he will be entitled to recover possession of the property notwithstanding the adverse decision u/s 6 of the Act. This, as against a decision u/s 6 of the Act, the remedy of unsuccessful party is to file a suit based on title. The remedy of filing a revision is available but that is only by way of an exception; for the High Court would not interfere with a decree or order u/s 6 of the Act except on a case for interference being made out within the well settled parameters of the exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s 115 of the Code.

The learned trial Court, in the instant case, has granted a decree for declaration dehors the law. Thus, in my considered opinion, the learned appellate Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application of the petitioner u/s 6(3) of the Act of 1963 because the appellate Court is well within its right to examine the relief of declaration granted by the learned trial Court in exercise of powers conferred on a first appellate Court u/s 96, CPC. In the net result, there is no force in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed summarily.