Settled Possession in Section 6 Suits

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Sandeep V. Marne of the Bombay High Court in Gaurav Sri Kalyan v. Ram Naresh Singh and Others. (2025) rejected the plaintiff's interim application seeking restoration of possession, holding that he failed to prove settled possession of the suit premises as required under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA).  

What was the Background of Gaurav Sri Kalyan v. Ram Naresh Singh and Others. (2025) Case? 

• The plaintiff filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 claiming forcible dispossession from premises known as Block Nos. 1 and 3 on the ground floor of 'Laxmi Sadan' building in Dadar (East), Mumbai on 8 September 2025. 
• The plaintiff claimed to be the nephew and Class-II legal heir of Radheshyam Chhotelal Shah (Radheshyam), who was a tenant of the suit premises. 
• Radheshyam had allegedly acquired tenancy rights in Block Nos. 1 and 3 from another tenant and from Smt. Saroj Krishnaji Salakade (Saroj), who owned 50% share in the building. 
• Saroj had bequeathed her entire share in the property to Radheshyam through a Will dated 25 January 2006, and the plaintiff claimed to be the executor of this Will. 
• The plaintiff alleged that he resided with Radheshyam as a family member, though he was employed in Jordan and made periodic visits to India. 
• Radheshyam passed away on 2 July 2025, and the plaintiff flew down from Jordan on 3 July 2025 to perform the last rites. 
• On 8 September 2025, the plaintiff was allegedly forcibly dispossessed from the suit premises by the defendants. 
• Defendant No. 1 subsequently filed S.C. Suit No. 2136/2025 on 10 September 2025 claiming to be a tenant inducted in the suit premises and seeking injunction against the plaintiff. 
• The plaintiff filed the present suit on 19 September 2025 seeking restoration of possession and damages of Rs. 10 crores, along with an interim application for temporary injunction. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On Section 6 and Settled Possession: 

• The Court held that Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act protects "actual possession," not mere "claim to possession" or presence in property. 
• Mere proof of presence is insufficient – what needs to be proved is "settled possession" that is effective, undisturbed, and to the knowledge of the owner. 
• Relying on Rame Gowda v. M. Vardhappa Naidu (2004) and Poona Ram v. Moti Ram (2019), the Court emphasized that casual or stray acts do not constitute possession worthy of protection. 
• Section 6 provides temporary relief until rival claims are adjudicated; no appeal or review is permitted, indicating its summary nature. 

On Animus Possidendi and Plaintiff's Status: 

• The Court emphasized that possession requires animus possidendi – the conscious intent to control and exclude others from the property. 
• The plaintiff, being a permanent resident of Jordan who visited periodically, demonstrated complete absence of intention to possess the suit premises. 
• His entry for performing Radheshyam's last rites could not be equated with possession of the property. 
• The Court noted that restoring possession would merely result in the plaintiff locking the premises and returning to Jordan, defeating the purpose of Section 6. 

On Legal Principles and Balance of Convenience: 

• Citing Behram Tejani & Others v. Azeem Jagani (2017), the Court held that relatives staying with gratuitous licensees do not acquire independent possessory rights. 
• The plaintiff would not suffer irreparable loss as he was not a resident and would not lose his shelter. 
• The Court observed that ample alternative remedies were available – a declaratory suit for tenancy rights or a title-based suit for ownership. 

Final Order: 

• The Court rejected the interim application, holding that the plaintiff thoroughly failed to prove a prima facie case of being in settled possession of the suit premises as on the date of alleged dispossession. 

What is Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? 

About: 

• Section 6 provides a remedy for persons dispossessed of immovable property without their consent and otherwise than in due course of law. 
• The dispossessed person may recover possession through a suit, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up. 
• The suit must be brought within six months from the date of dispossession. 
• No suit under this section can be brought against the Government. 

Key Features: 

• It is a summary remedy that does not require proof of title or legal nature of possession. 
• The objective is to discourage people from taking law into their own hands and to restore status quo ante. 
• No appeal lies from any order or decree passed under this section, nor is any review allowed. 
• This section does not bar any person from subsequently suing to establish title and recover possession. 

Requirements for Relief: 

• The plaintiff must prove actual possession (not merely constructive or paper possession) of the immovable property. 
• The possession must be settled, effective, and undisturbed – not casual, intermittent, or stray. 
• There must be element of animus possidendi (intention to possess). 
• Dispossession must have occurred within six months prior to filing the suit. 
• Dispossession must be without the plaintiff's consent and otherwise than in due course of law. 

Distinction from Title-Based Suits: 

• Section 6 suits focus solely on the fact of possession and dispossession, not on title or legal right to possess. 
• Even a trespasser or person without legal right can maintain a Section 6 suit if in settled possession. 
• Questions of title, if any, can be determined in separate substantive proceedings after restoration of possession under Section 6.