Specific Relief Act (SRA)
The Summary Possessory Remedy: Section 6
Suppose you are thrown out of your land by force, without any order of a court. Must you first prove your ownership before you can get back in? Section 6 says no. It gives a summary remedy to any person dispossessed of immovable property without his consent and otherwise than in due course of law: he can recover possession on the strength of his prior possession alone, and the person who threw him out cannot defend by pleading a better title. The object is to stop people from taking the law into their own hands. This note explains Section 6.
Figure: Section 6: the four ingredients, the limits in sub-sections (2) to (4), why the remedy exists, and the comparison with Section 5
1. The Provision
Section 6 ▪ (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 a suit under this section, nor shall any review be allowed. ▪ (4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title and to recover possession. |
2. The Ingredients
What the plaintiff must show ▪ Prior possession. The plaintiff was in possession of the immovable property. ▪ Dispossession without consent. He was dispossessed, and without his consent. ▪ Not in due course of law. The dispossession was otherwise than in due course of law, that is, without lawful authority or a court's order. ▪ Within six months. The suit is brought within six months of the dispossession. ▪ Who may sue. The dispossessed person, or any person claiming through him. |
3. Title Is Irrelevant
i. Possession, not title, is the question. The plaintiff need not prove ownership; prior possession is the sole foundation of the suit.
ii. The defendant cannot set up title. The words 'notwithstanding any other title that may be set up' bar the defendant from defending on the strength of a superior title.
iii. Section 6 decides possession, never title. The court restores possession; it does not adjudicate ownership.
4. The Limits
Limit | The position |
|---|---|
Six-month bar, s. 6(2)(a) | No suit after six months from the date of dispossession; the period is not extendable |
No suit against Government, s. 6(2)(b) | The summary remedy does not lie against the Government |
No appeal or review, s. 6(3) | A Section 6 decree carries no appeal and no review; only a revision lies, on the narrow grounds of jurisdiction or material irregularity |
Title suit preserved, s. 6(4) | The loser may still bring a regular suit on title under Section 5 and recover possession |
5. The Object of the Remedy
Krishna Ram Mahale v Mrs Shobha Venkat Rao (1989) 4 SCC 131 The Supreme Court reaffirmed the settled principle that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assertion of a title in himself, he cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law. A person who has been dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law is entitled to be put back in possession, and the party who dispossessed him cannot resist on the strength of his own title. |
Sanjay Kumar Pandey v Gulbahar Sheikh (2004) 4 SCC 664 The Court explained that a suit under Section 6 is a summary proceeding, with limited scope: the only questions are whether the plaintiff was in possession and was dispossessed within six months otherwise than in due course of law. Title is wholly irrelevant, and the decree is not appealable; the aggrieved party's remedy is a separate title suit. |
6. Section 6 and Section 5 Compared
Basis | Section 6 (possessory) | Section 5 (proprietary) |
|---|---|---|
What is proved | Prior possession and dispossession | Title or a better right to possess |
Title | Irrelevant; defendant cannot plead it | Decisive |
Nature | Summary, quick, final on possession | A full trial of title |
Limitation | Six months | Twelve years, Article 65 |
Against Government | Not available | Available |
Appeal or review | None; only revision | The decree is appealable |
7. Who Can Use Section 6
i. Tenants. A tenant in possession, dispossessed by force, may use Section 6, even against the landlord.
ii. Licensees. A licensee in possession may invoke the remedy against forcible dispossession.
iii. Co-owners. A co-owner in possession, ousted otherwise than in due course of law, may sue.
iv. Even a trespasser in settled possession is protected against being thrown out by force, though not against a lawful eviction.
8. Frequently Asked Questions
Q. What must a plaintiff prove in a Section 6 suit?
A. That he was in possession and was dispossessed without his consent, otherwise than in due course of law, and that he sued within six months. Title need not be proved.
Q. Can the defendant plead a better title in a Section 6 suit?
A. No. The section bars the defendant from setting up any title; Section 6 decides possession alone.
Q. Is there an appeal from a Section 6 decree?
A. No. Section 6(3) bars appeal and review; only a revision lies, on narrow grounds. But a separate title suit under Section 5 is preserved by Section 6(4).
Q. Can a Section 6 suit be filed against the Government?
A. No. Section 6(2)(b) bars a suit under this section against the Government.
SEO METADATA URL slug: summary-possessory-remedy-section-6-specific-relief SEO title: The Summary Possessory Remedy: Section 6 Meta description: Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act: recovery of possession by a dispossessed person on prior possession alone, the six-month bar, no appeal, and the comparison with Section 5. Keywords: Section 6 Specific Relief Act, summary possessory remedy, dispossession without due process, prior possession suit, Section 6 vs Section 5, six month limitation |