Restoration of Possession Over Title: Clarifying Dispossession Requirements Under Section 6, Specific Relief Act

Introduction

This case arises from a family dispute over a portion of a residential house in Village Jaisingh Pura, Sector 27, Panchkula. The petitioners—members of one branch of a large joint family—are led by Ram Sarup @ Sarup @ Ram Swaroop, while the respondents are the wife and children of the petitioners’ pre‑deceased son, Harjinder Pal. In 2009, Harjinder Pal was murdered; thereafter relations between his widow Jaswinder Kaur (plaintiff No. 1) and her in‑laws deteriorated. In September 2021, the petitioners allegedly broke open locks and dispossessed the respondents from the disputed portion marked GHIJ (or OQRS) in competing site plans. The respondents sued under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for restoration of possession. The trial court decreed their suit; the petitioners challenged that order by way of revision under Section 115, CPC.

Summary of the Judgment

On 10 March 2025, Justice Vikram Aggarwal dismissed the revision petition. The High Court upheld the trial court’s finding that:

The respondents had been in undisturbed possession until dispossession in late August/early September 2021;
Their suit under Section 6 was filed well within six months of dispossession;
The petitioners’ plea of an oral family settlement handing back possession in August 2021 was uncorroborated and inherently improbable;
In Section 6 proceedings the question is one of dispossession, not title—once dispossession is proved, relief follows notwithstanding conflicting claims of ownership.

Accordingly, the High Court found no jurisdictional error or misappreciation of evidence and refused to interfere in revision.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Anima Mallick v. Ajoy Kumar Roy, (2000) 4 SCC 119: Requirement of proving the specific date of dispossession and possession details in a Section 6 suit.
Satpal Singh & Anr. v. Gurmej Singh & Anr., 2019 (2) PLR 379 (P&H): Emphasis on cogent proof of dispossession and the nature of possession.
Sudhir Jaggi v. Sunil Akash Sinha Choudhary, 2004 (4) RCR 241 (SC): Title is immaterial in Section 6 suits; the focus is on possession and dispossession.
Rame Gowda (D) by Lrs. v. Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs., (2004) 1 SCC 769: A trespasser in settled possession need not prove title, only continuous possession.
I.T.C. Ltd. v. Adarsh Coop. Housing Soc. Ltd., (2013) 10 SCC 169: Proceedings under Section 6 are summary; no appeal or review lies against decrees passed therein.

Legal Reasoning

The Court observed that Section 6(1) of the Specific Relief Act empowers any person dispossessed of immovable property “otherwise than in due course of law” to recover possession “notwithstanding any other title set up.”
The only statutory constraints are that the suit be brought within six months of dispossession and not against the Government (Section 6(2)).
The petitioners relied on an alleged oral family settlement of August 3, 2021. The Court held that such an informal arrangement—between parties embroiled in years of litigation—demands documentary proof. Its absence made the plea inherently implausible.
Minor inconsistencies in the cross‑examination as to the exact date (late August vs. 3 September 2021) did not defeat the suit, so long as the action lay within six months.
Investigative reports by the local police finding “no forcible dispossession” were not conclusive; they reflected untested statements and could not override the documentary and oral evidence of dispossession led by the plaintiffs.
Reliance on precedents affirmed that in Section 6 suits, title disputes are irrelevant: possession and dispossession govern the remedy. The bar on appeals under Section 6(3) underscores the summary nature of these proceedings.

Impact

This judgment reinforces key tenets of Section 6 jurisprudence:

Courts will prioritize proof of dispossession over competing title claims.
Section 6 suits must be filed within six months; slight dating discrepancies are secondary to timely institution.
Oral family settlements affecting possession require contemporaneous written documentation, especially when litigation history reveals deep mistrust.
This decision will guide trial courts in evaluating family‑settlement defences and in applying the summary nature of Section 6 proceedings without delving into title complexities.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 6, Specific Relief Act: A special remedy allowing a dispossessed person to sue for restoration of possession, regardless of title disputes, so long as the suit is within six months of dispossession.
Summary Proceedings: Proceedings that focus on narrow issues (here, possession vs. dispossession) and bar appeals or reviews, to ensure speedy remedy.
Oral Family Settlement: An informal agreement among family members; without written documentation, it is weak evidence in protracted disputes.
Revisional vs. Appellate Jurisdiction: Under Section 115, CPC, High Courts in limited circumstances may review lower‑court decisions—but cannot substitute their view on factual appreciation unless there is a jurisdictional error.

Conclusion

The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision clarifies that in Section 6 actions the “right to possession” outweighs any competing title claims, so long as dispossession is proven and the suit is timely brought. It underscores that oral family settlements are insufficient to oust a dispossessed party absent written evidence. Trial courts should conduct a focused inquiry into possession facts and avoid delving into title disputes. This ruling strengthens the summary remedy under Section 6 and will shape future adjudication of possessory suits.