2000 JTR(SC) 441
2000 2 AllCJ 1635 ; 2002 2 OLR 114 ; 2000 4 SCC 119 ; 2000 KHC 1117
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Kirpal : S.S.M.Quadri
Anima Mallick
Versus
Ajoy Kumar Roy
Case No. : 1566 of 2000
Date of Decision : 2/25/00
High Courts should not exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with a District Judge's order when the claimant's possession was purely gratuitous and lacked any legal interest, such as ownership, tenancy, or a license.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
: Art.227
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.115(a)
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT: S.6
(A) Specific Relief Act - Section 6 - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code - Section 115-A - Restoration of possession - Gratuitous possession - Discretion of High Court - Where a party was using a property on permission and claimed no legal interest, ownership, tenancy, or license, and possession was purely gratuitous, the High Court ought not to have exercised its discretion under Article 227 to interfere with the judgment of the District Judge. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
A suit was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for the restoration of possession of a garage. The respondent claimed to have been dispossessed from the garage owned by the appellant. The trial court ordered possession to be restored, but this order was set aside by the District Judge on an application filed under Section 115-A of the Civil Procedure Code. This decision was subsequently challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution in the High Court, which restored the trial court's original decision.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondent was using the garage on permission granted by the owner. Since the respondent claimed no legal interest in the garage and was not a tenant or a licensee, the possession was deemed purely gratuitous. Consequently, it was not a fit case for the High Court to interfere with the District Judge's order under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Issues: Whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside the District Judge's order and restore the trial court's decision regarding the possession of a garage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where a party's possession of a property is purely gratuitous and devoid of any legal interest, such as ownership, tenancy, or license, the High Court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the judgment of a District Judge.
Result: Appeal allowed, judgment of the High Court set aside and decision of the District Judge restored.
Facts of the case:
A suit was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for the restoration of possession of a garage. The respondent claimed to have been dispossessed from the garage owned by the appellant. The trial court ordered possession to be restored, but this order was set aside by the District Judge on an application filed under Section 115-A of the Civil Procedure Code. This decision was subsequently challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution in the High Court, which restored the trial court's original decision.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondent was using the garage on permission granted by the owner. Since the respondent claimed no legal interest in the garage and was not a tenant or a licensee, the possession was deemed purely gratuitous. Consequently, it was not a fit case for the High Court to interfere with the District Judge's order under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Issues: Whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside the District Judge's order and restore the trial court's decision regarding the possession of a garage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where a party's possession of a property is purely gratuitous and devoid of any legal interest, such as ownership, tenancy, or license, the High Court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the judgment of a District Judge.
Result: Appeal allowed, judgment of the High Court set aside and decision of the District Judge restored.
(1) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2) THESE proceedings arise from a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act which was filed by the respondent as per the judgment of the High Court, The respondent in his suit stated that he was using the garage owned by the appellant, his sister. The contention was that he had been dispossessed from the garage by his sister.
(3) THE trial court ordered possession to be restored but on an application filed under Section 115-A of the Civil Procedure Code, the District Judge allowed the said application filed by the applicant (appellant herein). The order of the trial court was set aside. This order was sought to be challenged by a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the Calcutta High Court and the decision of the trial court had been restored.
(4) WITHOUT going into the question of law we are of the opinion that under Article 227 the High Court ought not to have exercised its discretion and interfered with the judgment of the District Judge. It is evident that the respondent was using the garage of the appellant on permission having been granted by the sister to the brother. According to the judgment of the High Court the respondent was claiming no legal interest in the said garage as he was not claiming its ownership because he was not claiming to be a tenant or even a licensee. His possession was purely gratuitous and even if without the knowledge of the respondent the appellant has reclaimed the possession, it was not a fit case for the High Court to have interfered under Article 227 of the Constitution.
(5) WE, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the decision of the District Judge.