GULAB SINGH Vs. VIRENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22-8-2003 passed by learned First Additional District Judge, Sidhi in Civil Suit No. 17-A/2003 whereby the suit of respondent-plaintiff under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act has been decreed, the defendant-applicant has come up in this revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this revision application. Suffice it to say that a suit for possession by taking aid of section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, the Act of 1963) has been filed by the plaintiff in respect to the open land which is the subject-matter of the suit and the description whereof is mentioned in the plaint. According to the plaintiff he was in possession of the property but the defendant-applicant by taking the law in his own hands has dispossessed him. The date of dispossession is 13-9-1996 and the suit has been filed within six months since it was filed on 13-12-1996. In the plaint it has been pleaded that because plaintiff has been illegally dispossessed, the possession be restored to him.

(2.) Defendant-Applicant has refuted the plaint averments by filing written-statement and specifically pleaded that plaintiff was an encroacher and he encroached upon the suit land which is owned by the State Govt. and, therefore, possession cannot be restored to him. It has also been pleaded by him that the property in question was sold to him for a consideration of Rs. 45,000/- and the possession was also delivered to him on 2-9-1996 in pursuance to the said sale deed hence according to the stand taken by the defendant he is the title holder and the suit cannot be decreed.

(3.) The learned trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit directing defendant to deliver possession to the plaintiff. In this manner, this revision application has been filed by the defendant-applicant.