RAMAKRISHNA SUVARNA Vs. SHESHI HENGSU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The defendant in O.S: 295 of 1986 was also the defendant in O.S. 48 of 1973. Plaintiff in both the suits is his mother. She filed the first suit of 1973 for possession and succeeded after nearly 12 years of litigation between herself and her son, and the revision petitioner was directed by this Court to deliver possession of the suit property on the expiry of the 31st day of December, 1985. Soon thereafter, the plaintiff in O.S. 48 of 1973 filed execution petition and the suit house was delivered to her. Thereafter, she filed the latter suit of 1986 alleging that her son had broken open the lock put by her on doors of the suit house and took possession illegally of her property and therefore possession of the same may be restored to her. The second suit was, therefore, filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

(3.) The defendant resisted inter-alia contending that he, at the request of his mother and grand-father, went back to the house and therefore it was not a case falling under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act as he had implied consent by the mother - plaintiff and therefore the suit was not maintainable. He, however,' also contended that he occupied the suit schedule premises within about eight or ten days after it was delivered to his mother and therefore, the suit filed on 5-8- 1986 was clearly barred by time having been filed after six months. He also questioned the valuation of the suit schedule property and the Court fee paid by the plaintiff.