Section 6 of specific relief act

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 19 September 2011 This query is : Resolved
Dear Experts Please answer my Query.

An Ejection Suit filed only for possession of immovable property (not for Title) with a fake "cause of action".

Defendant denies plaintiff title to the property,and says that he in possession of property for last 15 years.

Plaintiff mention fake (date of dispossession) "cause of action" to get a "summary remedy" under section 6 of specific relief act.

If Plaintiff and defended not related as owner and tenant,

1) Who has the burden of proof of dispossession ?

2) Mere challenging the title is enough for defendant to dismiss the suit since title not prayed by plaintiff?

3) Is the defendant have to prove that he was in possession for last 6 month?

Thanks in Advance.

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Devajyoti Barman (Expert) 19 September 2011
1. It is always the plaintiff who has to prove his plaint case.

2.No as in such suit the title is not strictly considered. It is the prior possession which is considered.

3. Once the plaintiff discharge his onus of proof , the same shifts to the defendant.

prabhakar singh (Expert) 20 September 2011
1)In civil cases one pleads the affirmative has to prove his case.

2) No.

3)In civil cases burden shifts from one party to another party,and on conclusion of evidence it becomes of less importance,one has to take a view on the basis of entire facts and circumstances as to which side has a better possible and more probable case.

Advocate Bhartesh goyal (Expert) 20 September 2011
Experts are absolutely right.

Arif Iqbal (Expert) 20 September 2011
Mr Barman and Mr Prabhakar has shown the way..

Guest (Expert) 20 September 2011
regarding section 6 the title is not in question. only possession. The plaintiff has to prove possession by other means