 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Specific Relief Act, 1963 6. Suit by persons dispossessed of immovable property (1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit. (2) No suit under this section shall be brought- (a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or (b) against the government. (3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed. (4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof. Comment: The next question is : whether the decree for possession could be granted in favor of the appellant. It is true that the suit was not filed within six months under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. But, as seen earlier, the proceedings under S.145 were initiated at the instance of the respondent Ram Gopal and were pending for long time until the revision was dismissed by the High Court giving liberty to the appellant to file the suit for possession. Under these circumstances, the suit came to be filed immediately after the proceedings came to a terminus, no doubt, after issue of notice to the Government under Section 80 CPC and after expiry of 60 days time required under S.80 CPC. Under these circumstances, it must be concluded that in substance the suit is one under S.6 of the Specific Relief Act. Beharilal v. Smt. Bhuri Devi, AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 1879    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back