Limitation Period for Section 6 Specific Relief Act Suit Commences From Actual Date of Dispossession

The Appellants (original Plaintiffs) filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking restoration of possession and a permanent injunction

The Appellants claimed that Santosh Kumari purchased the suit property in 1979 via GPA and Agreement to Sell, and remained in continuous possession until 20.09.2019, when the Respondents allegedly dispossessed them by force

The Respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint, asserting the suit was barred by limitation and that the title documents were forged—a claim supported by a police closure report in FIR No. 591/2019

The Trial Court rejected the plaint on 20.02.2023, observing that the suit was filed beyond the six-month limitation period and that GPA/Agreement to Sell do not convey title

The Appellants challenged this via a Regular First Appeal (RFA) after a delay of 1050 days caused by initially filing an incorrect revision petition

1. Whether the appeal is maintainable in view of the statutory bar under Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

2. Whether the suit was instituted within the six-month limitation period prescribed under Section 6(2)(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

3. Whether the Trial Court could reject the plaint based on merits of title or external evidence like police reports under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which provides a summary remedy for restoration of possession to persons dispossessed without consent, provided the suit is filed within six months of dispossession

Section 6(3) explicitly bars appeals or reviews against orders passed under this section

The court also applied Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC regarding the rejection of a plaint

Regarding title, it referenced Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, noting that GPA/Will transfers do not convey legal title, but clarified that in Section 6 proceedings, the court must only look at the factum of prior possession and the date of dispossession

The High Court first addressed maintainability, noting that while Section 6(3) bars appeals, the present RFA would be treated as a Revision Petition since the Appellants had initially followed the correct procedure but were misled by the Registry

On the merits of Order VII Rule 11, the Court held that the Trial Court erred by analyzing the validity of the Appellants' title (GPA/Agreement to Sell), as Section 6 is concerned only with possession, not title

The Court scrutinized the Appellants' own documents regarding the date of dispossession. While the plaint alleged dispossession on 20.09.2019, the police complaint dated 14.10.2019 made by the Appellant's son indicated that the act of dispossession (breaking the gate and wall) occurred on or around 14.10.2019. Consequently, the suit filed on 01.09.2020 was found to be beyond the mandatory six-month limitation period under Section 6(2)(a), even after considering the COVID-19 limitation extensions

Although the Trial Court wrongly delved into the question of title, its final conclusion to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was upheld because the Appellants failed to institute the suit within six months of the forcible dispossession. All pending applications were disposed of