LAND DISPUTE SETTLED: THE LIMITS OF POSSESSION UNDER THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT

Introduction
This article analyses the Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in K.S. Manjunath v. Moorasavirappa, delivered on November 10, 2025. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, dealt with a dispute over an order of injunction and the scope of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Brief Facts
Original Suit and Claim: The original suit was filed by the Respondent (Plaintiff), Moorasavirappa, seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the Appellant (Defendant), K.S. Manjunath, from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit property, which was agricultural land. The Plaintiff claimed title to the land based on a registered Sale Deed dated November 28, 2007.
Trial Court Decree: The Trial Court decreed the suit, restraining the Defendant from interfering with the Plaintiff’s possession.
First Appeal: The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Defendant.
Second Appeal: In the Second Appeal, the High Court confirmed the findings of the lower courts and upheld the decree.

Supreme Court Challenge: The Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, primarily arguing that the concurrent findings on possession were based on a complete misreading of the evidence. The Defendant also raised a contention regarding the maintainability of a suit for injunction without seeking the relief of possession, especially in light of the principles of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
⚖️ Issues of Law
The primary issues before the Supreme Court were:

Whether the courts below were correct in their concurrent findings regarding the Plaintiff’s possession of the suit property.

Whether the Defendant’s contention regarding the application of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to a suit for permanent injunction was legally valid.

🔎 Analysis of the Judgment
The Supreme Court examined the findings of the lower courts and the statutory provisions raised by the Appellant.
Possession and Factual Findings: The Court thoroughly reviewed the records and noted that the Plaintiff had discharged his burden of proving his possession, as established by the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The Supreme Court concluded that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the possession of the Plaintiff were based on due consideration of the evidence on record and did not warrant interference.
Applicability of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act: The Appellant attempted to invoke Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which deals with suits by a person dispossessed of immovable property without his consent and otherwise than in due course of law. The Court held that this contention was fundamentally misplaced.
Scope of Section 6: Section 6 allows a person dispossessed to recover possession merely by proving previous possession and illegal dispossession, without needing to prove title. Such a suit must be filed within six months of the date of dispossession.
Irrelevance to the Present Suit: The present suit was one for a permanent injunction, not for the recovery of possession under Section 6. The Plaintiff was not claiming to have been dispossessed; rather, he was asserting his current possession and seeking protection from future interference. Therefore, the rigor and limitations (such as the six-month period) imposed by Section 6 are not applicable to a suit for permanent injunction. The Court stated that the remedy sought in the suit, being an injunction, was distinct from the remedy provided under Section 6.

📝 Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal, upholding the decree of permanent injunction granted in favour of the Plaintiff. The judgment affirms the principle that concurrent findings of fact on possession, based on evidence, should not ordinarily be disturbed. Crucially, the Court clarified that Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is strictly limited to suits for recovery of possession by a person who has been illegally dispossessed, and it has no application to a suit where the plaintiff, claiming to be in current possession, merely seeks a decree of permanent injunction against interference.

Sarthak Kalra, Advocate
Senior Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video titled “Rights of Husband in False Matrimonial Cases | 498A Misuse | 2025 Judgments Explained” can be viewed at the Link below: