SUDHIR JAGGI AND ANR. versus SUNIL AKASH SINHA CHOUDHURY AND ORS.

SUDHIR JAGGI AND ANR. versus SUNIL AKASH SINHA CHOUDHURY AND ORS.

The buyer was put in possession of the suit flats in May 1967, exercised dominion and exclusive control over the property by erecting permanent structures and holding keys; his dispossession in February 1979 was not in accordance with due process of law; entitlement to recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was established.

Parties
Appellant: Sudhir Jaggi; Respondent: Sunil Akash Sinha Choudhury; Appellant: Ranjit Singh; Appellant: Arun K. Sinha; Appellant: B. Mohan; Respondent: Jaydeep Gupta; Respondent: Samir Roy Chowdhury; Respondent: G.S. Chatterjee
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Division Bench of Calcutta High Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Possession, Dispossession, Specific Relief, Recovery of Possession, Summary Suit
Property Law Civil Procedure Possession Dispossession Specific Relief Recovery of Possession Summary Suit

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sudhir Jaggi

Appellant

Sunil Akash Sinha Choudhury

Respondent

Ranjit Singh

Appellant

Arun K. Sinha

Appellant

B. Mohan

Appellant

Jaydeep Gupta

Respondent

Samir Roy Chowdhury

Respondent

G.S. Chatterjee

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Division Bench of Calcutta High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the buyer was lawfully put in possession of the suit flats
  2. 2 Whether the buyer was dispossessed other than by due process of law
  3. 3 Entitlement to recovery of possession under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act

Ratio Decidendi

The buyer was put in possession of the suit flats in May 1967, exercised dominion and exclusive control over the property by erecting permanent structures and holding keys; his dispossession in February 1979 was not in accordance with due process of law; entitlement to recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was established.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Impugned judgments and decree for repossession upheld; suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act decreed in favour of plaintiffs; no order as to costs