Delhi High Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Suit Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, Cites Lack of Evidence for Possession and Rules Caregiving or Temporary Stays Do Not Constitute Settled Possession or Unlawful Dispossession

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court overturned the trial court’s decision that granted possession of the disputed property to the plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The court ruled that:

1. The plaintiff failed to establish her settled possession over the disputed property.
2. There was no proof of unlawful dispossession by the defendant. As a result, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

Facts

1. The Property:
   • The suit property was owned by the late Smt. Shanti Rani Gupta and comprised two rooms on the ground floor, along with other portions of the house in Shakarpur, Delhi.
   • Smt. Gupta passed away childless, leaving behind a disputed Will that allegedly divided her property equally among three heirs.
2. The Plaintiff’s Claim:
   • The plaintiff claimed she lived with Smt. Gupta in the property from 2012 until Smt. Gupta’s death in 2017.
   • She argued that she moved in to care for Smt. Gupta in her old age.
   • After Smt. Gupta’s death, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant, a legal heir, forcibly dispossessed her by locking the two rooms on the ground floor.
3. The Defendant’s Counter-Claim:
   • The defendant argued that he was also a legal heir to the property and took possession of the rooms only after Smt. Gupta’s demise.
   • He denied that the plaintiff was ever in settled possession of the disputed portion.
   • He claimed that any temporary care provided by the plaintiff did not amount to legal possession.

Issues

1. Was the plaintiff in settled possession of the property at the time of the alleged dispossession?
2. Did the defendant unlawfully dispossess the plaintiff?
3. Does the plaintiff have a valid claim under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act?

Petitioner’s Arguments (Defendant)

1. Lack of Settled Possession:
   • The defendant argued that the plaintiff had no documentary proof of her possession over the two rooms on the ground floor.
   • Temporary stays to care for the deceased could not constitute settled possession.
2. No Evidence of Dispossession:
   • The plaintiff admitted that she was not physically present in the disputed portion at the time of the defendant’s alleged entry.
   • The defendant, as a legal heir, had the right to access and occupy the property after Smt. Gupta’s death.
3. Deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Evidence:
   • The plaintiff’s documents (e.g., voter ID and correspondence) did not conclusively establish her possession of the ground-floor rooms.
   • The trial court erred in assuming possession based on weak evidence.

Respondent’s Arguments (Plaintiff)

1. Settled Possession:
   • The plaintiff claimed she had lived with Smt. Gupta in the disputed rooms from 2012 until 2017.
   • She presented voter ID and correspondence addressed to her at the property as proof of her residence.
2. Unlawful Dispossession:
   • The plaintiff argued that after Smt. Gupta’s death, the defendant locked the rooms and refused to hand over possession, effectively dispossessing her without following legal procedures.
3. Right to Restoration of Possession:
   • Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff argued that she was entitled to restoration of possession regardless of the defendant’s claim of ownership.

Analysis of the Law

1. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act:
   • Section 6 protects individuals from being dispossessed without due process, regardless of ownership or title.
   • To succeed under Section 6, a plaintiff must prove:
     • Settled possession of the property.
     • Unlawful dispossession by the defendant.
2. Key Requirements:
   • Settled Possession: Possession that is continuous, peaceful, and undisputed for a reasonable period.
   • Unlawful Dispossession: Entry or takeover without legal authority or following due process.
3. Application in This Case:
   • The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove settled possession. Occasional stays to care for the deceased did not amount to continuous possession.
   • There was no evidence that the defendant’s entry into the property was unlawful, especially since he was a legal heir.

Precedent Analysis

• The court referred to prior judgments emphasizing that claims under Section 6 require:
  • Substantive proof of possession.
  • Evidence of unlawful dispossession.
• The court highlighted that possession cannot be presumed based on weak or circumstantial evidence.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Lack of Evidence for Possession:
   • The plaintiff’s own testimony confirmed that the disputed rooms were in the exclusive possession of Smt. Gupta until her death.
   • Documents submitted by the plaintiff (voter ID, correspondence) were insufficient to establish settled possession.
2. No Unlawful Dispossession:
   • The defendant’s act of locking the rooms after Smt. Gupta’s death did not constitute unlawful dispossession since the plaintiff was not physically present or in joint possession of those rooms.
3. Flawed Trial Court Decision:
   • The trial court wrongly assumed possession without substantive evidence.
   • The burden of proof rested on the plaintiff, who failed to discharge it.

Conclusion

• The High Court set aside the trial court’s judgment and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit.
• The court ruled that the plaintiff could not prove her claim under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

Implications

• This judgment underscores the importance of proving settled possession in disputes under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
• It clarifies that mere caregiving or occasional stays do not amount to possession.
• The case reinforces that legal heirs are entitled to access property after the owner’s demise unless proven otherwise.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Disposes Contempt Petition Against SDM for Failing to Enforce Employee’s Compensation Order; Directs Action on Absconding Employer to Ensure Implementation