ABDUL RAHIMAN Vs. NALAKATH MUHAMMED HAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 323 of 1990 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Tirur. According to him, plaint schedule property was set apart to the share of his brother Ahammadunni as per an oral partition. Since Ahammadunni was Pakistan Citizen, he had to depart from India in 1949 and he handed over his properties which was set apart to him as per the oral partition to the plaintiff/petitioner for management and maintenance. But subsequently, those properties were taken into custody by custodian to evacuee property as per the provisions of Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. But the custodian entrusted all such properties to the petitioner/plaintiff himself. While petitioner/plaintiff was in possession and management of the properties, Ahammadunni came to India with the permission of the Government on 30.6.1990 and wanted to get back those properties from the petitioner/plaintiff. Since plaintiff did not oblige him, Ahammadunni created an assignment deed in favour of the defendant and defendant on the basis of the assignment deed and with the help of another brother of the plaintiff/petitioner Bappu Haji, who is in enmity towards the plaintiff, trespassed into the property on 13.9.1990 and defendant is in unlawful possession. Therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiff under S.6 of the Specific Relief Act to get a decree for recovery of possession. The above case was considered by the learned Munsiff and the Learned Munsiff found that plaintiff did not prove his possession of the property for six months prior to the filing of the suit and therefore he is not entitled to get a decree as prayed for on the basis of S.6 of the Specific Relief Act.

(2.) It is contended by the revision petitioner herein that the learned Munsiff did not consider the evidence in the right perspective. It is also contented that there was another suit, O.S. No. 280 of 1990 with respect to Ahammedunni's other properties for which similar title was claimed, eventhough defendants were different. Petitioner has produced Exts. A1 to A13 in that suit. It was decreed in his favour. Learned Munsiff dismissed petitions for reopening the case and for producing the photocopies of the relevant documents which were produced in O.S.No.290 of 1990 or to call for the documents produced in that suit. This resulted in miscarriage of justice.

(3.) S.6 of the Specific Relief Act provides as follows: