https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305837 A suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act succeeds only on proof of lawful exclusive possession and dispossession within the statutory period. The Supreme Court held that inconsistent pleadings, absence of a lease deed, rent note or rent receipt, and reliance on prima facie orders did not prove tenancy or exclusive possession in the respondent's own right. It further held that possession of a servant or agent is not possession for Section 6 purposes. The Court also found that a decree for demolition and removal of construction could not stand because it went beyond the plaint and the limited scope of Section 6. The decree was set aside and the suit dismissed. en-us Tue, 05 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Dec 2022 11:17:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305837 A suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act succeeds only on proof of lawful exclusive possession and dispossession within the statutory period. The Supreme Court held that inconsistent pleadings, absence of a lease deed, rent note or rent receipt, and reliance on prima facie orders did not prove tenancy or exclusive possession in the respondent's own right. It further held that possession of a servant or agent is not possession for Section 6 purposes. The Court also found that a decree for demolition and removal of construction could not stand because it went beyond the plaint and the limited scope of Section 6. The decree was set aside and the suit dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305837