Even a Trespasser in Settled Possession Cannot Be Dispossessed Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes in Family Property Dispute

If some family settlement had been arrived at, some writing must have been executed because parties were at loggerheads for the last 15 years — Punjab & Haryana High Court delivered a crucial ruling in Ram Sarup @ Sarup @ Ram Swaroop and Others vs. Jaswinder Kaur and Others (CR-6696-2024 (O&M)), involving a bitter family dispute over possession of ancestral property. The Court, speaking through Justice Vikram Aggarwal, decisively held that even if a person is not the owner of the property, settled possession cannot be disturbed except by following due process of law. Refusing to accept the defendants' claim of an oral family settlement, the Court upheld the trial court’s decree restoring possession to the plaintiffs under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

The case arose from a tragic background where Harjinder Pal, son of Ram Swaroop, was murdered in 2009, leaving behind his wife Jaswinder Kaur and two children. After his death, the plaintiffs continued residing in a portion of the family property situated in Village Jaisingh Pura, Panchkula. The defendants, who were close relatives, forcibly dispossessed the widow and her children from the property on 3rd September 2021. Multiple prior litigations had already been fought between the parties, highlighting the deep-rooted family discord.

Justice Vikram Aggarwal remarked on the changing societal dynamics stating, "In the good old times, familial bonds were strong...with the rise in the prices of property, there has been a decline in values. Murders take place over property disputes and civil litigation has become the order of the day." The Court described this case as another painful example of property disputes tearing families apart after the death of elders.

The central question before the Court was whether plaintiffs, though not owners, could reclaim possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, especially when the defendants argued that possession was voluntarily handed over pursuant to an oral family settlement.

Rejecting the defendants' argument outright, the Court observed, “If some family settlement had been arrived at, some writing must have been executed because parties were at loggerheads for the last 15 years and nobody, under such circumstances, would be having faith on each other.” The Court found it unbelievable that after prolonged litigation, an oral settlement without any documentation would have resulted in voluntarily handing over possession.

The defendants also relied on the technicality that the plaintiffs failed to specify the exact date of dispossession, as the plaintiff admitted in cross-examination that possession might have been lost in August 2021, whereas the plaint mentioned September 2021. On this, Justice Aggarwal clarified, “The argument that the specific date of dispossession is not known will not cause any dent in the case of the plaintiffs. The fact remains that dispossession was there.”

The Court emphasized that under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the title of the plaintiffs was immaterial. What mattered was whether the plaintiffs were in settled possession and whether such possession was taken away without recourse to law. In powerful words, the Court stated, “Even a trespasser in settled possession is not required to prove his title over the suit land but is only required to prove lawful long possession.”

Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Sudhir Jaggi v. Sunil Akash Sinha Choudhary, the Court reiterated that “It is the question of dispossession which is important in a suit filed under Section 6 of the 1963 Act and the question of title would be irrelevant.”

The Court, after exhaustively examining oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the revision petition and upheld the trial court's decree restoring possession to the plaintiffs. Justice Aggarwal noted that the plaintiffs had been consistently successful in previous litigations as well, stating, “By and large, matters have been decided in favour of the plaintiffs.”

The Court also discredited the police report which favored the defendants, observing, “Such a report is based upon the statements made by persons present at a particular place. It is not unknown that a widow and her two children would have less support as compared to the defendants who had been living in the area for a number of years.”

In refusing to interfere in revision, Justice Aggarwal concluded, “There is absolutely no jurisdictional error in the judgment and, therefore, I do not find any reason to exercise the revisional jurisdiction.”

The judgment reinforces a vital legal principle: possession, even if without title, enjoys legal protection under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Court sent a clear message that no one, including family members, can take law into their own hands to dispossess someone merely on the strength of a claim of ownership or oral arrangements.

As Justice Aggarwal aptly summarized, “The learned trial Court examined the matter from all angles and returned a well-reasoned finding based upon correct appreciation of evidence.”

Date of Decision: 10th March 2025