BALARAM DEY Vs. CHAYA DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revisional application is directed against a judgment and decree in a proceeding under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The defendant is the petitioner before this Court. At the very outset we keep it on record that the prayers for relief on behalf of the petitioner have been made by invoking the provisions only of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Kundu in support of the Revisional application and Mr. Roy on behalf of the contesting plaintiffs/opposite parties.

(3.) Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act creates a jurisdiction of a summary nature. The two basic elements on consideration of which the Court is required to exercise this jurisdiction are actual possession and the nature of the manner of dispossession. These are elements findings of which are bound to be findings of fact and as such, are not ordinarily liable to interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction unless such interference is called for on satisfaction of well recognised ratios propounded by authoritative pronouncements. In the present case the learned counsel, representing the contesting parties, have cited different judicial pronouncements inviting and/or resisting the exercise of power for interference by this Revisional Court. From the citations made it is clear that the necessity for an interference in the present case admittedly can be decided upon findings as to whether the factual conclusions are perverse or not, but not by upsetting such factual conclusion by substitution of a second probable view on the evidence or on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. It is needless to add that to enable the Revisional Court to discharge its function, appraisal in the strict sense is permitted but such appraisal must not be for interference in contravention of the above jurisdictional norms. Relevant facts, in the present case, are as follows :-