Physical Possession and Settled Possession Are Prerequisites for Section 6 Relief: Delhi High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Decision Granting Possession

Delhi High Court allowed a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), reversing the Trial Court's decree in a possession suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The suit was filed by the plaintiff, Ms. Purnima Garg, against the defendant, Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta alias Bablu, for possession of two rooms on the ground floor of a property in Shakarpur, Delhi. The High Court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish "settled possession" or her alleged dispossession, which is essential for relief under Section 6.

The High Court observed that Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act protects possession from unlawful dispossession but requires the plaintiff to demonstrate settled physical possession. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted:

“Once joint possession with the deceased owner has not been established, there is no question of physical dispossession. Mere caretaking during the deceased’s lifetime does not amount to settled possession.”

The Court emphasized that, under Section 6, the plaintiff cannot rely solely on ownership or title disputes. It held:

“The scope of Section 6 is limited to possession. Any claim based on title or inheritance must be pursued through appropriate legal proceedings, such as the pending title suit filed by the plaintiff.”

The case revolved around property No. 96A, Block-H, Shakarpur, Delhi, originally owned by the deceased, Smt. Shanti Rani Gupta. The plaintiff, Ms. Garg, claimed to have moved into the property in 2012 at the invitation of her aunt, Smt. Gupta, to care for her in her old age. Upon Smt. Gupta's death on January 9, 2017, the defendant, a Class II legal heir and nephew of the deceased, locked two rooms on the ground floor, allegedly ousting the plaintiff.

The plaintiff contended that she was in joint possession of the entire property, including the two rooms on the ground floor, and was illegally dispossessed. She also claimed ownership of a one-third share under a registered Will of Smt. Gupta, though the validity of the Will was under dispute in a separate title suit.

The defendant, Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta, argued that the plaintiff never had exclusive possession of the two rooms in question, which were occupied solely by the deceased. He claimed that his occupation of the ground floor was lawful as a Class II legal heir.

The Court reiterated that Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act protects possession irrespective of ownership or title, but the plaintiff must prove settled possession and illegal dispossession. It found that the plaintiff failed to establish her possession over the two rooms:

“The pleadings and testimony of the plaintiff herself show that the two rooms on the ground floor were in the exclusive possession of the deceased Smt. Shanti Rani Gupta. The plaintiff’s daughter’s occasional presence to assist the deceased does not prove joint possession.”

The Court noted that the plaintiff remained in possession of the first floor and one room on the ground floor, which the defendant had not disputed.

The High Court emphasized that the burden of proving possession and dispossession lies on the plaintiff. Justice Krishna observed:

“The Trial Court erroneously presumed settled possession and illegal dispossession without cogent evidence. Section 6 relief cannot be granted on mere allegations or preponderance of probability.”

The plaintiff failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence, such as voter ID or correspondence, to establish possession of the disputed two rooms. The Court dismissed these documents as insufficient proof.

The defendant argued that as a Class II legal heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, he had a lawful right to occupy the property after the owner’s death. The High Court upheld this contention, noting:

“The defendant’s occupation cannot be deemed unlawful under Section 6, as he entered the property as a legal heir after the owner’s demise. Any dispute over inheritance or title must be resolved through separate legal proceedings.”

The Trial Court had relied on Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to presume settled possession in favor of the plaintiff. The High Court rejected this reasoning:

“Presumption under Section 114 cannot substitute the requirement of proving settled possession through cogent evidence. The Trial Court erred in relying on presumptions without substantive proof.”

The plaintiff had referenced a registered Will, claiming one-third ownership of the property. However, the High Court clarified that the validity of the Will and title claims were not within the scope of a Section 6 suit. It noted:

“The plaintiff’s claim of ownership is a moot point to be adjudicated in her separate title suit. The Section 6 proceedings are confined to possession and cannot be used to determine ownership.”

The High Court set aside the Trial Court’s judgment and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. It concluded:

“The plaintiff failed to prove her physical possession of the two rooms on the ground floor. Consequently, there is no question of her being unlawfully dispossessed by the defendant.”

The Court directed both parties to pursue their respective claims of ownership or inheritance through appropriate legal proceedings.

Date of Decision: January 17, 2025