MOHD. MEHTAB KHAN & ORS. versus KHUSHNUMA IBRAHIM & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 3 S.C.R. 359 · Decided: 24-01-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 3 S.C.R. 359 
MOHD. MEHTAB KHAN & ORS. 
v. 
KHUSHNUMA IBRAHIM & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 678 of 2013) 
JANUARY 24, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.) 
A 
B 
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s. 6 - Scope of - Held: The 
proceeding u/s. 6 is summary proceeding to afford immediate 
remedy in cases of illegal dispossession - Questions of title 
C 
or better rights of possession does not arise for adjudication. 
Interim Order: Grant of interim order - Principles, the 
courts must follow in this regard, explained - Held: The interim 
relief granted to the plaintiffs by the appellate court, in the 
0 
instant case is a mandatory direction to handover possession 
to the plaintiffs - Grant of mandatory interim relief requires 
highest degree of satisfaction, much higher than a case 
involving grant of prohibitory injunction - When trial court, on 
a consideration of the respective cases of the parties and the 
documents was of the view that the entitlement of the plaintiffs 
E 
to an order of interim mandatory injunction was in serious 
doubt, the appellate court could not have interfered with the 
exercise of discretion by the trial judge unless such exercise 
was found to be palpably incorrect or untenable - Interim 
Mandatory Injunction. 
F 
Appeal - Against discretionary order - Jurisdiction of 
appellate court - Explained. 
Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit uls. 6 of Specific 
G 
Relief Act, 1963. They took the plea that their possession 
of the suit flat and suit office was forcibly taken by 
defendants 2, 3 and 4. The court appointed a Receiver. 
As per report of the Receiver, defendant Nos. 5 to 9 were 
359 
H 
360 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 
A found in possession of the suit flat. Formal possession 
of the flat was taken by the Receiver, but he could not 
take possession of the suit office. The plea of the 
defendants was that the plaintiffs were not in possession 
of the suit properties. Trial court declined the interim relief 
B to put the plaintiffs back in possession of the suit 
properties, in view of the inconsistencies and 
improbabilities in the plaintiffs case, which needed to be 
established in the trial. Appellate Court granted interim 
relief to the plaintiff reversing the order of trial court. 
c Therefore, instant appeal was filed. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. A proceeding u/s. 6 of the Specific Relief 
Act, 1963 is intended to be a summary proceeding, the 
D object of which is to afford an immediate remedy to an 
aggrieved party to reclaim possession of which he may 
have been unjustly denied by an illegal act of 
dispossession. Questions of title or better rights of 
possession do not arise for adjudication in a suit u/s. 6 
E where the only issue required to be decided is as to 
whether the plaintiff was in possession at any time six 
months prior to the date of filing of the suit. The 
legislative concern underlying s. 6 is to provide a quick 
remedy in cases of illegal dispossession so as to 
F discourage litigants from seeking remedies outside the 
arena of law. The same is evident from the provisions of 
s. 6(3) which bars the remedy of an appeal or even a 
review against a decree passed in such a suit. [Para 12) 
[370-D-G] 
G 
P. S. Sathappan (Dead) by Lrs. v. Andhra Bank Ltd. and 
Ors. (2004) 11 SCC 672: 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 188 -
referred to. 
2. Given the ground realities of the situation, it is 
H neither feasible nor practical to take the view that interim 
MOHD. MEHTAB KHAN & ORS. v. KHUSHNUMA 
361 
IBRAHIM & ORS. 
matters, even though they may be inextricably connected 
A 
with the merits of the main suit, should always be 
answered by maintaining a strict neutrality, namely, by a 
refusal to adjudicate. Courts, therefore, will have to 
venture to decide interim matters on consideration of 
issues that are best left for adjudication in the full trial of B 
the suit. In view of the inherent risk in performing such 
an exercise, which is bound to become delicate in most 
cases, courts must follow certain principles in this regard, 
though such principles cannot be entrapped within any 
straitjacket formula or any precise laid down norms. c 
Courts must endeavour to find out if interim relief can be 
granted on consideration of issues other than those 
involved in the main suit and also whether partial interim 
relief would satisfy the ends of justice till final disposal 
of the matter. The consequences of grant of injunction 
0 
on the defendant, if 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.