Title For Ownership Cannot Be Decided In A Case For Possession Recovery Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act: Jharkhand High Court.

The Jharkhand High Court has emphasized that ownership claims regarding a property cannot be resolved in a possession recovery case under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision to deny an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) along with Section 151 of the CPC. The Bench pointed out that the issue of whether the property was divided before the sale agreement was made in favor of the plaintiff by one of the co-owners does not affect the case under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Justice Subhash Chand stated, “The case was clearly about recovering possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. It is established that ownership title is not to be determined in such cases. The question of whether the property was partitioned before the sale agreement has no relevance in this context.”

Advocate Rahul Kr. Gupta represented the Petitioners, while Advocate Praveen Akhouri represented the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) by LRs. v. Ramesh Chander Agarwal (2003), which confirmed that ownership title should not be addressed in a Section 6 suit. The High Court noted that the dispute involved the property being jointly owned and possessed, with one co-owner allegedly signing the sale agreement and delivering possession to the plaintiff.

In this case, the Trial Court needs to decide two main issues: first, whether the plaintiff in suit no. 14 of 2021 was in possession of the property in question; and second, whether the plaintiff was forcibly removed from that property without following legal procedures. This matter is to be resolved between the plaintiff and the defendant, the Court stated. The petitioner challenged the Trial Court’s decision that rejected their application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming to be co-owners of the property and arguing that they should be included as necessary parties since the property is jointly owned. However, the Court found this argument invalid based on the issues to be resolved between the parties.

As a result, the Court concluded that the order from the lower Court is valid, and the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. The order dated 18.11.2022 from the Civil Judge (S.D.) Ist, Khunti in Original Suit No. 141 of 2021 is upheld. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Randhir Kumar & Anr. v. Budhdeo Kumar Kashyap & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Rahul Kr. Gupta, Rakesh Kr. Singh, Swati Singh and Surya Prakash
Opposite Parties: Advocates Praveen Akhouri, Mohini Gupta and Aayush Jha