SARASWATI Vs. BINDRABAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is directed against the judgment of Sub Judge, Reasi decreeing the plaintiffs suit for possession of the suit land under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY speaking a suit for restoration of the possession of the land measuring 18 Kanals and 2 marlas, as described in the plaint, was instituted under the provisions of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act by Bindra Ban against Amir Chand and others with the allegation that the plaintiff had been in peaceful posses ­sion thereof since 2011 Bk. on the basis of an agreement to sell when on 12th of August 1966 the defendants took forcible possession of the land and dispossessed the plaintiff otherwise than in due course of law and without his consent. The defen ­dants denied the act of dispossesion by them. They also denied that the plaintiff had been in possession of the property in dispute within six months, next before the institution of t he suit The trial court held that there was sufficient proof available about the execution of the agreement to sell the disputed land in favour of the plaintiff and it was in pursuance of the agreement to sell that the plaintiff had been in possession of the suit property till 12th of August 1966. The court also held that the defendants forcibly occupied suit property otherwise than in due course of law. The plaintiff, was therefore, found entitled to a decree for possession.

(3.) THE only point that has been canvassed before us in this revision petition is that the defendants being the owners of the suit property no suit for possession could lie against them and the trial court was not justified in passing the decree against the defendants. The position of the plaintiff was only that of a trespasser. It is, however, conceded that the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property for a number of years but his possession, it is urged, could not ensure for his benefit and he could not maintain the suit on the basis of possessory right against the true owner. Possession was good against all the world except the true owner. Therefore if the defendants had obtained the possession of the suit property even by dispossessing the plaintiff trespasser his act was justified and the court could not pass a decree for restoration of possession in favour of the plaintiff.