Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court

"Section 6 (2) of the Specific Relief Act mandates that no suit under Section 6 can be brought about after the expiry of 6 months from the date of such dispossession," Madras High Court, in a significant judgment dated June 5, 2026, has affirmed that the six-month limitation period for filing a suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is mandatory and strictly enforceable.

A bench of Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that if a plaintiff fails to approach the court within six months of the alleged dispossession, the suit is statutorily barred, and the court need not delve into other merits of the case.

The dispute arose from a sale agreement entered into on March 9, 2006, between the appellant (plaintiff) and the first respondent (vendor) for a property in Karaikal. The plaintiff paid an advance of Rs. 2,00,000 against a total consideration of Rs. 6,20,000. While the plaintiff claimed he was put in possession on the date of the agreement, the vendor denied this, leading to multiple litigations including a suit for injunction, a suit for specific performance (O.S.No. 8 of 2007), and a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act (O.S.No. 14 of 2008).

The primary question before the court was whether the suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was barred by the law of limitation as prescribed under Section 6(2). The court was also called upon to determine whether the plaintiff demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and whether the subsequent suit for specific performance was barred under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.

Mandatory Limitation Period Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act

The court meticulously examined the timeline of the alleged dispossession and the presentation of the plaint. The appellant claimed he was dispossessed from the suit property on March 26, 2007. However, the court found that the plaint for the Section 6 suit was presented only on October 26, 2007.

Justice Kumaresh Babu noted that the records clearly reflected the presentation date as October 26, 2007, which was exactly seven months after the alleged dispossession. The court emphasized that the statutory mandate under Section 6(2) of the Specific Relief Act prohibits any suit after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession.

"The records reveal that the plaint was only presented before the Court on 26.10.2007... and the appellant had not produced any contra evidence to substantiate that the appeal has been filed within six (6) months as stipulated under Section 6(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963."

Absence Of Readiness And Willingness In Specific Performance

Regarding the claim for specific performance, the court scrutinized the plaintiff's conduct under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. It was observed that the plaintiff had raised doubts regarding the extent of the property, claiming a shortage of 6 kuzhies, and had demanded a reduction in the sale price.

The bench found that the plaintiff had not produced any material to show he had made good the balance sale consideration or was genuinely willing to register the sale deed as per the original terms. The court held that raising such doubts instead of performing the obligation to pay the balance consideration indicated a lack of readiness.

"Either during the earlier suit or even during the pendency of this suit, the appellant had not attempted to show his bonafides by depositing the sale consideration."

Bar Under Order II Rule 2 Of The CPC

The court highlighted a critical procedural lapse by the appellant. Before filing the suit for specific performance, the appellant had instituted O.S.No. 251 of 2006 for a permanent injunction to protect his possession. At that time, the cause of action for specific performance was already available to him, yet he failed to seek that relief or obtain leave from the court to sue for it later.

The bench ruled that the subsequent suit for specific performance was hit by the principles of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. This provision mandates that a plaintiff must include the whole of the claim which they are entitled to make in respect of a cause of action, and failure to do so bars a subsequent suit for the omitted relief.

"Filing of the suit would also indicate that there was a relationship between the parties pursuant to the sale agreement... and he had not sought for a relief of specific performance in the earlier suit. Hence, the present suit would also be hit by principles of Order II Rule 2 CPC."

Protection Of Bonafide Purchaser

The court also affirmed the Trial Court's finding that the second defendant was a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. It was noted that the vendor had returned the advance amount to the plaintiff via a pay order, which the plaintiff refused, leading the vendor to deposit the amount in court. The subsequent sale was therefore held to be valid.

The High Court concluded that there was no infirmity or irregularity in the findings of the lower court. The appeal suit challenging the rejection of specific performance and the revision petition challenging the dismissal of the Section 6 suit were both dismissed. The court upheld the direction for the refund of the advance amount of Rs. 2,00,000 already lying in court deposit to the plaintiff.

Date of Decision: 05 June 2026