AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amit Rawal, J. (Oral) - Petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved of the dismissal of the suit instituted under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (in short "1963 Act") on the premise that Prem Nath, being old tenant after his death on 02.03.2009, survived by four sons, five daughters and one widow. Some of the surviving children of Prem Nath including widow suffered a relinquishment deed and writing dated 27.05.2010 and handed over the possession. The other siblings did not take the ownership right/consent for handing over the possession and therefore, her rights have been seriously prejudiced.
In support of is aforementioned contention, Mr. Alok Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in Syed Mubarak Hussain v. The Custodian General of Evacuee Property AIR 1957 (Punjab) 197. He further submits that aforementioned provision of law was not noticed by the Court below and dismissed the suit.
Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Amandeep Singh Meho, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that suit, ex facie, was not maintainable as per Section 6 of 1963 Act. Vis-vis forcible dispossession, until and unless the plaintiff lead evidence qua possession, the suit would not proceed further. In fact, remedy, if any, lies elsewhere and therefore, the suit has rightly been dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and of the view that in case, the petitioner plaintiff had any grievance with regard to relinquishment deed, simpliciter suit under Section 6 of 1963 Act, was not maintainable. Remedy, lies elsewhere, i.e., by seeking declaration and consequential relief, if permissible in law but not in the manner and mode which has been adopted. Thus, ratio decidendi culled out by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Pandey and others v. Gulbahar Sheikh and others 2004 (4) SCC 664 by taking benefit of Section 14 of 1963 Act, the petitioner is entitled to seek remedy, if permissible in law, in case, she chooses.
In view of the aforementioned facts, the order under challenge is affirmed. With the aforementioned liberty, revision petition stands disposed of.