NAGAR PALIKA, JIND versus JAGAT.SINGH, ADVOCATE

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 9 · Decided: 28-03-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

NAGAR P ALIKA, JIND 
A 
v. 
JAGAT.SINGH, ADVOCATE 
MARCH 28, 1995 
[J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH AND K VENKATASWAMI, JJ.) 
B 
. 
-... 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder 39--injunctioTt-Suit for injunc-
... 
tion by pl{lintiff claiming ownership and possession of suit land-Court 
• 
granted injunction on the basis of possession without considering whether 
,, 
plaintiff had title to the suit land-Cannot be granted without proof of title. c 
Specific Relief Ac~ 1963-Section 6-Applicability of---Object of-f'ro-
vides speedy remedy to a person ousted from possession without due process 
of /aw-Previous possession and dispossession must be pleaded:-Not ap-
plicable to suit for injunction based on title and possession. 
D 
... 
Mutation Entry-<:annot be a source of title . 
', 
The respondent filed a suit for injunction against the appellant 
claiming ownership and possession of the suit land. The respondent failed 
to produce any sale deed to establish his title over the suit land, but Instead E 
relied on certain revenue entries. The suit was dismissed by the trial court 
...J 
holding that the respondent had failed to prove that he was the owner of 
the suit land and was in possession thereot 
On appeal, the first appellate court reversed the finding of the Trial 
"· 
court and decreed the suit holding that the material placed on record F 
showed the possession of the respondent over the suit land. The appellate 
court did not examine whether the respondent bad any title over the suit 
land or not, while allowing the appeal on the basis of Its finding in respect 
of possession of the respondent over the suit land. The appellate court held 
that the respondent's title to the land had been admitted by the appellants. G 
.J. 
The second appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the High Court 
in /imine. The review petition filed by the appellant was also dismissed by 
=<' 
the High Court. 
Hence, the present appeal. 
H 
9 
10 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Berore, this Court, the respondent, apart from other arguments, 
-r-
urged that the suit filed by the respondent can be considered as a suit for 
possession and dispossession under Section 6 or the Specific Relier Act, 
1963. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The first appellate court without considering the question 
whether the plalntlff·respondent had proved his title to the property in 
,.. 
dispute proceeded to examine whether the said respondent was in posses· 
-
slon thereor. In a suit for ejectment based on title it was incumbent on the 
{, part or the. first appellate court first to record a finding on the claim on 
title to the suit land made on behatr or the respondent. The first appellate 
court committed a substantial error or law by decreeing the suit or the 
respondent without recording a finding In respect or his claim or title over 
the suit land. (17 ·G, C] 
D 
Chhote Khan v. Mal Khan, AIR (1954) SC 575, Durga Singh v. Tholu, 
~ 
AIR (1963) SC 361 and Vishwa Vijay v. Fakhrul Hassan, AIR (1976) SC 
"
1485, distinguished. 
>-
2. The first appellate court never inquired or investigated that 
B 
question which was at issue saying that the title or the plaintiff-respondent 
was admitted by the appellant. This was a serious error or record. The title 
and possession or the respondent had always been disputed by the appel· 
:.. 
lant rrom the stage or the written statement. (17-H, 18·AJ 
3.1. Section 6 or the Specific Relier Act provides a summary remedy 
F for a person who, being in possession Immovable property, is ousted 
thererrom. In such circumstances, It Is possible that the person so dispos· 
sessed may pursue summary and speedy remedy through the medium or 
the Civil Court for restoration or possession. Disputed question of title are 
to be decided by due process or law but the peaceful possession is to be 
G 
protected from a trespasser under Section 6 or the Specific Relier Act 
without regard to the question or the origin or the possession. Such suit 
can be entertained and decreed, only where both the plaintiff and the 
,. 
defendant have no title to the suit land, but as the plaintiff proves his prior 
possession, because or that he Is entitled to a decree for possession against 
the defendant who dispossessed him. The plaint or such suit must aver 
H only previous possession and dispossession by the defendant, otherwise 
NAGARPALIKAv. JAGATSINGH[N.P.SINGH,J.) 
than in due course of law. [15-G-H, 16-A] 
11 
\ 
Perry v. Cliss

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