Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with suit by person dispossessed of immovable property. If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person [through whom he has been in possession or any person] claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in su The Act came into force on 01 Mar 1964.
(1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person 1[through whom he has been in possession 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 any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed.
(4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof.
Section 6, The Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Act 47 of 1963).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 7
- Delhi Court Fee Amendment ACT 2012 s. 3
- Goa Court-Fees Act s. 54 Repeal and savings
- Gujarat Court-fees Act s. 51
- Puducherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act s. 29 Suits for possession under the Specific Relief Act, 1963
- Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act s. 5 Reservation of land
- Tamil Nadu Indebted Persons (Temporary Relief) Act s. 17
- Tamil Nadu Nuclear Installations (Regulation of Buildings and Use of Land) Act s. 17
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Sanjay Kumar Pandey v. Gulbahar Sheikh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-5.pdf 2004-04-02 DATE VERIFIED. CA 2040/2004 (SLP(C) 303/2002). Lahoti / Bhan. Isolates SRA 6: a summary suit for recovery of immovable property is confined to possession and dispossession within six months, ignoring title; no appeal or review lies; the unsuccessful party’s remedy is a regular title suit; CPC 115 revision is exceptional and only within settled revisional parameters. Do not invent CPC 115 as a teaching unit this pass. Do not pad SRA 5/8.
On this section: SRA 6 summary suit is confined to possession and dispossession within six months, ignoring title; no appeal, and CPC 115 revision is exceptional (Sanjay Kumar Pandey). Do not pad SRA 20.
-
Shakuntala Devi vs Chamru Mahto
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a magistrate declares a party to be entitled to possession under Section 145(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and no specific limitation period is prescribed within Section 145 for the enforcement of such declaration, the application for restoration of possession under Section 145(6) must be made within three years from the date of the declaration, as prescribed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act as a residuary provision. An application for restoration filed beyond this three-year period is barred by limitation and cannot be entertained, and the provisions of the Specific Relief Act do not apply to criminal proceedings under Section 145 CrPC.
On this section: Prescribes six-month period for filing suit for restoration of possession in civil matters; Court held this provision was misapplied by High Court in criminal proceedings under Section 145
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… However, the appellants are alleged to have illegally, Digitally signed by unauthorizedly and by use of force, evicted the respondent. Within six months of dispossession, the respondent filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963[1]( page-1-0). The Trial Court decreed the suit after disbelieving the contentions raised by the appellants regarding voluntary handover of possession, relying upon a possession receipt. The appellant's plea regarding the suit being not maintainable under Section 6 of the Act was …
-
… The contention of the appellants is that it was filed under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and while disposing of C.A. No. 5201 of 2009 this court held against the respondent herein/ the plaintiff that the suit is not one under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Ergo, according to the appellants, the relief claimed for possession by the plaintiff/the respondent herein was not entertainable as he being a person claiming only possessory title and the original defendant No. 2/ the deceased appellant No. 2 being the lawful owner of the suit schedule …
-
… This Court repelled the above submission. In paragraph 9, the plea of respondent based on Section 6 was rejected by this Court by making following observation: "9. We fail to appreciate as to how the principle of Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 can be applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The respondent, who was the plaintiff, never alleged that he had been dispossessed by the appellant-Municipal Committee. On the other hand, he claimed to be the owner of the land in question and asserted that he was in …
Questions about Section 6
What have the courts held on Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act?
Sanjay Kumar Pandey v. Gulbahar Sheikh (02 Apr 2004) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: SRA 6 summary suit is confined to possession and dispossession within six months, ignoring title; no appeal, and CPC 115 revision is exceptional (Sanjay Kumar Pandey). Do not pad SRA 20. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2009.
How do I find court cases under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Specific Relief Act 6, section 6 Specific Relief Act, section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. People searching for it also type specific relief act 6 38. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Sanjay Kumar Pandey v. Gulbahar Sheikh (02 Apr 2004).
What should I read with Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, and has it changed?
7 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act come into force?
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, cited as Specific Relief Act 6, came into force on 01 Mar 1964, having been enacted on 13 Dec 1963. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 12. Specific performance of part of contract391 words
- 28. Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed382 words
- 15. Who may obtain specific performance330 words
- 13. Rights of purchaser or lessee against person with no title or imperfect title309 words
- 26. When instrument may be rectified292 words
- 20. Substituted performance of contract269 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.