Delhi High Court Dismisses Man’s Possession Suit, Says He Cannot Claim He Was Recently Evicted After His Earlier Court Statement Showed He Lost Possession Years Ago
Delhi High Court Rejects Brother’s Section 6 Possession Suit, Says Earlier Court Admission Showed He Was Out of Possession Since 2017
Facts
Rakesh Sachdeva filed a suit claiming rights over property bearing B/1/2, Pramod Mahajan Marg, Saket, New Delhi. Initially, he claimed ownership over the entire building on the plea of adverse possession. Later, he amended the plaint and abandoned the plea of ownership by adverse possession, limiting his claim to recovery of possession of the ground floor under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
His case in the amended plaint was that he was illegally dispossessed from the ground floor on 26.10.2020, and therefore the suit filed in November 2020 was within the six-month limitation period prescribed under Section 6.
The defendant, Rajesh Sachdeva, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Order XII Rule 6 CPC, seeking rejection/dismissal of the suit. He relied on earlier pleadings from another suit, where Rakesh had stated in 2017 that Rajesh had already leased out the ground floor and that Rakesh would take legal steps to recover possession. The defendant argued that this was a clear admission that Rakesh was not in possession of the ground floor at least since 15.04.2017.
Issues
- Whether a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act can be dismissed at the interlocutory stage as barred by limitation.
- Whether the plaintiff’s admission in earlier judicial proceedings could be relied upon to show that he was dispossessed more than six months before filing the suit.
- Whether documents not filed with the plaint, but deliberately withheld and relevant to limitation, can be considered while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
- Whether the Court could invoke Order XII Rule 6 CPC to dismiss the suit on the basis of clear admissions.
Petitioner’s/Plaintiff’s Arguments
The plaintiff argued that the suit was within limitation because the plaint specifically pleaded that dispossession took place on 26.10.2020.
He submitted that, for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint can be looked into. Since the plaint disclosed a cause of action within six months, the suit could not be rejected as time-barred.
He further argued that limitation was a mixed question of law and fact and could not be decided without evidence.
The plaintiff also contended that his earlier reply in the other suit did not amount to a clear and unequivocal admission. He relied on judgments stating that a decree or dismissal on admission can be passed only where the admission is clear, categorical and unambiguous.
Respondent’s/Defendant’s Arguments
The defendant argued that the suit was clearly barred by limitation because a Section 6 suit must be filed within six months from the date of dispossession.
He submitted that in an earlier suit, Rakesh had filed a reply dated 15.04.2017 admitting that Rajesh had leased out the ground floor to a tenant and that Rakesh would initiate legal proceedings to recover possession. According to the defendant, this showed that Rakesh was not in possession of the ground floor at least by 15.04.2017.
The defendant further argued that the plaintiff deliberately concealed these earlier pleadings and created an artificial cause of action by pleading dispossession on 26.10.2020.
He also relied on the plaintiff’s wife’s pleadings in another suit, where she had allegedly stated that the ground floor was in exclusive possession of the defendant, who had kept a tenant there and was receiving rent.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and held that three conditions must be established in such a suit:
- The plaintiff was in possession of the property.
- The plaintiff was dispossessed without consent and otherwise than in due course of law.
- The suit was filed within six months from the date of dispossession.
The Court noted that Section 6 provides a summary and speedy remedy to restore possession to a person who has been illegally dispossessed. However, the six-month limitation period is mandatory.
The Court held that the plaintiff’s earlier reply dated 15.04.2017 amounted to a clear admission that he was not in possession of the ground floor at least from that date. Therefore, a suit filed in November 2020 was far beyond the six-month period.
The Court also held that where a plaintiff deliberately withholds material documents that ought to have been filed with the plaint, the Court can examine such documents while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Alternatively, even if those documents were not considered under Order VII Rule 11, the Court could rely on the admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams v. K.M. Krishnaiah, where it was held that a Section 6 suit filed beyond six months from dispossession is not maintainable.
The Court also relied on Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam, which held that admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions and can themselves form the foundation of rights between parties.
The Court referred to Babita Pal v. Jagdish Bansal to hold that, while deciding Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court can look not only at the plaint and documents filed with it, but also at documents which ought to have been filed but were deliberately withheld.
The Court also relied on Keshav Chander Thakur v. Krishan Chander, where the Delhi High Court held that even if a matter cannot strictly be decided under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court can suo motu exercise powers under Order XII Rule 6 CPC where clear admissions exist.
The plaintiff’s reliance on Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes, Balraj Taneja and Nisha Chandola was rejected. The Court held that those cases did not help the plaintiff because the present case involved a positive and unequivocal admission by the plaintiff himself in prior judicial proceedings.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the plaintiff’s plea of dispossession on 26.10.2020 was an illusionary cause of action created to bring the suit within limitation.
The plaintiff’s earlier reply in 2017 showed that he had already acknowledged that the defendant had leased out the ground floor and that he would take legal steps to recover possession. This clearly meant that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property at least on or before 15.04.2017.
The Court also noted that the plaintiff did not deny filing the earlier reply and did not explain or controvert the admission made in it. He also did not deny the existence of the registered lease deed dated 20.08.2015 in favour of the tenant.
Since the material documents and admissions were undisputed, the Court held that limitation was not a disputed question of fact in this case. The suit was plainly barred under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the defendant’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
The plaint was rejected and the suit was dismissed, as the plaintiff’s own earlier judicial admission showed that he was out of possession of the ground floor at least since 15.04.2017, while the suit under Section 6 was filed only in November 2020.
Case Details
Case: Rakesh Sachdeva v. Rajesh Sachdeva
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: CS(OS) 344/2020 and connected applications
Judge: Justice Vikas Mahajan
Date: 8 July 2026
Result: Defendant’s application allowed; plaint rejected; suit dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
