HC grants relief to woman dislodged by husband’s second wife

Forcible dispossession of any person, though not being the owner, is forbidden in law, the HC said

The Bombay High Court (HC) earlier this month said that the law respects possession and forbids forcible dispossession. It said that even if a person doesn't have a right to property but is in peaceful possession of the same, s/he can be dispossessed only after following the due process of law.

A bench of Justice Bharati Dangre was dealing with a plea filed by Manjulaben Shah, who claims to be the second wife of one Meghji Shah, challenging the decision of a city civil court that had passed orders in favor of Madhuriben Shah, the first wife of Meghji, with regards to the possession of a flat in Borivali.

As per the original suit filed by Madhuriben under the Specific Relief Act, she claimed that she was in a 'settled and continuous' possession of the flat from 1983 till July 2008, when Manjulaben along with some men forcibly dispossessed her.

Justice Dangre noted the fact that to prove her continuous possession, Madhuriben had adduced evidence like ration card, power bills and so on; proving that the flat was the permanent address of the woman.

On the other hand, Manjulaben contended that just because she and Madhuriben had cordial relations, she had allowed the former to stay in the flat. She even argued that Madhuriben had no entitlement to the house as she wasn't the original owner.

Considering the facts of the case, Justice Dangre said, "Law respects possession and forbids forcible dispossession, even with the basis of the title, a person who is in settled possession of the property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, cannot be dispossessed except, by due process of law."

"Madhuriben being in peaceful possession of the suit property is entitled to retain her possession and in order to protect her possession, she may be entitled to use reasonable force to keep out the defendant (Manjulaben), who is not the owner of the premises," Justice Dangre ordered.

"A casual act of possession would not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner,” the judge remarked while dismissing the plea filed by Manjulaben.