- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sonaton Shome v. Sheikh Helim
Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff claimed constructive possession of a disputed land through Defendant No. 2, who was his tenant. Defendant No. 1 dispossessed Defendant No. 2 from the land on a certain date. The Plaintiff initiated a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act seeking recovery of possession, alleging that the dispossession of his tenant constituted a cause of action. The Munsif held that only Defendant No. 2, the person in physical possession, was entitled to sue under the Specific Relief Act, not the Plaintiff. The matter was brought before the higher court on a rule challenging this decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a person not in physical possession of property (Plaintiff) can bring a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for dispossession of his tenant.
- Whether subsequent collusion between the tenant (Defendant No. 2) and the dispossessor (Defendant No. 1) can confer a cause of action on the Plaintiff to sue under the Specific Relief Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The Plaintiff contended that Defendant No. 2, the tenant, declined to bring a suit because he was "gained over" by Defendant No. 1.
- The Plaintiff argued that this alleged collusion entitled him to institute a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, despite not being in physical possession himself.
Respondent's Arguments
- This information was not available in the provided opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court concurred with the Munsif's view that under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act only the person in physical possession of the property can maintain a suit for recovery of possession upon dispossession. The Plaintiff was not in physical possession; rather, his tenant was. The court examined the Plaintiff's claim that collusion between the tenant and Defendant No. 1 prevented the tenant from suing, thereby conferring a right to the Plaintiff to sue. However, the court found that such collusion, if it occurred, was subsequent to the dispossession and could not create a cause of action for the Plaintiff which did not exist at the time of dispossession. Section 9 explicitly requires dispossession of the person in physical possession, and the Plaintiff’s constructive possession did not satisfy this requirement. Consequently, the Plaintiff was not entitled to bring the suit under the Specific Relief Act.
Holding and Implications
The court DISCHARGED THE RULE WITH COSTS, confirming that only the person in physical possession at the time of dispossession has standing to sue under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The decision directly affects the parties by denying the Plaintiff’s claim and upholding the Munsif’s ruling. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing statutory interpretation.
We have heard the learned vakils on both sides in the matter of this rule, and we are of opinion that the Munsif was right in the view that he adopted.
It appears that the Plaintiff was in constructive possession of the land in suit through the Defendant No. 2, his tenant. This person was dispossessed by the Defendant No. 1 on a certain date. The Plaintiff regarding the said dispossession as affording him a good cause of action, brought the present suit to recover possession of the property under sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act.
The Munsif has held that the person who was entitled to bring a suit under the Specific Relief Act was the Defendant No. 2, and not the Plaintiff, who was not in physical possession of the land.
We quite concur with him in this view. Our attention has, however, been drawn to a statement in the plaint to the effect that the Defendant No. 2, being gained over by the Defendant No. 1, declined to bring a suit; and it has been contended before us by the learned vakil for the Petitioner that this fact, if true, would entitle the Plaintiff to bring a suit under the Specific Relief Act. It is quite clear on looking at the plaint that the dispossession complained of was not the outcome of any collusion between the Defendant No. 2 and the Defendant No. 1. The collusion—assuming what is stated in the plaint can be regarded as an act of collusion—took place subsequent to the dispossession; and the question that arises is whether, by reason of such collusion the Plaintiff was entitled to bring a suit under the Specific Relief Act—a suit which, had it not been for this collusion, he could not have instituted. Sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act, however, contemplates the case of a person who, being in physical possession of a property, is dispossessed. The Plaintiff was not in such physical possession, and therefore when the Defendant No. 2 was dispossessed it was no dispossession of the Plaintiff, such as would entitle him to bring a suit under the said section. The learned vakil for the Petitioner frankly admitted that had it not been for the statement in the plaint, to which he has called our attention, the Plaintiff could not be held entitled to bring a suit under the Specific Relief Act; and it seems to us that anything which might have occurred subsequent to the dispossession complained of could not give the Plaintiff a cause of action, which he did not acquire when such dispossession took place.
Upon these grounds we discharge this rule with costs. Pleader's fee two gold mohurs.
S.C.S
Rule discharged.
Alert