Sanjay Maruti Jadhav vs Amit Tatoba Sawant
- SCC(2024) 12 SCC 114
- Neutral2024 INSC 345
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court, regarding illegal dispossession of a licensee and the maintainability of a suit for restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, are binding on the Supreme Court in appeal and warrant dismissal of the appeal where no error of law is apparent on the face of the record.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.72 OF 2012
SANJAY MARUTI JADHAV & ANR. …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS AMIT TATOBA SAWANT …RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. In this case, orders were reserved on 18.01.2024, leaving it open for the parties to move an appropriate application within two weeks, in case any settlement is arrived at. More than three months have passed; however, no such application has been filed. We are thus proceeding to decide the matter on its merits.
2. The appellants are the owners of the property in question. Under the leave and licence agreement, the property in question was given to the respondent. However, the appellants are alleged to have illegally, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Neetu Khajuria unauthorizedly and by use of force, evicted the Date: 2024.04.26 17:38:02 IST Reason:
Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2012 Page 1 of 3 respondent. Within six months of dispossession, the respondent filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 19631. The Trial Court decreed the suit after disbelieving the contentions raised by the appellants regarding voluntary handover of possession, relying upon a possession receipt. The appellant’s plea regarding the suit being not maintainable under Section 6 of the Act was also rejected.
3. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred a revision before the High Court, which has since been dismissed by the impugned order. The High Court also found that the plea of maintainability of the suit raised by the appellant was without any merit and further concurred with the finding recorded by the Trial Court regarding the illegal dispossession of the respondent.
4. Such concurrent findings, based upon the evidence on record and also being findings of fact, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
1 Act,1963
Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2012 Page 2 of 3
5. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
……………………………………J. (VIKRAM NATH)
……………………………………J. (SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA) NEW DELHI APRIL 26, 2024
Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2012 Page 3 of 3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free