GOLLA VENKANNA Vs. RAHEEMA BEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Satyam Reddy, learned Counsel representing the petitioners and Sri Vijaysen Reddy, learned Counsel representing the respondent.

(2.) Sri Satyam Reddy, learned Counsel representing the petitioners had taken this Court through the evidence of P.Ws.l to 3, D.Ws.l to 4, Exs.Al to All and also Ex.B.l and B.2 and would contend that the learned Judge had not exercised the discretion properly and further had not appreciated the evidence available on record properly, while recording a finding relating to forcible dispossession.

(3.) On the contrary, Sri Vijaysen Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff had pointed out to the relevant findings which had been recorded by the learned Judge and also certain admissions made by D.W.I in the witness box and would contend that in the light of the facts and circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Judge cannot be found fault and hence, opportunity may be given to the revision petitioners- defendants to agitate their rights in a regular civil suit to establish their title to such property and to recover possession of the same in accordance with law as specified by Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter, for short, referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience).