Disputes Over Title Cannot Be Adjudicated In Suits U/S 6 Of Specific Relief Act: Jharkhand High Court

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, while dismissing a Civil Miscellaneous Petition challenging a trial court's rejection of an impleadment application, reiterated, “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 Original Suit, pending before the Trial Court. The suit was filed by the plaintiff to get back the possession of a property from which they were dispossessed by force allegedly without following the due legal process. The petitioner contended that he was a co-sharer in the disputed property and that it was of joint ownership and joint possession. It was further contended that the agreement to sell, on which the plaintiff based their possession claim, was a nullity as no partition had taken place, and no specific portion of the property could have been lawfully transferred.

Rejecting these arguments, the High Court observed that the issues to be decided in such suits are limited to two 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 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.”

Taking into consideration the issues which were to be decided between the plaintiff and defendant of Original Suit, the Court said that the petitioner was neither the necessary party nor proper party.

Thus, the High Court, concluded, "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."

Case Title: Randhir Kumar vs Budhdeo Kumar Kashyap And Ors

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 185

Click Here To Read Judgement