GORDHAN SINGH AND ORS. Vs. KANHAIYALAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions filed by the petitioners/defendants, Gordhan Singh and Veer Singh, against the respondent/plaintiff, Kanhaiylal (In C.R. No. 182/2008) and the plaintiff, Ratanlal (In C.R. No. 181/2008) are directed against the decree dated 02.05.2008 of learned trial court of Additional District Judge, Barmer, under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Act of 1963) directing possession of the plots of land in question to be handed over to the plaintiffs/respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present revision petitions are like this. The two portions of plot of land were sold by the defendants, namely, Gordhan Singh and Veer Singh, by two separate registered sale -deeds on 25.10.1988 to the plaintiffs, Kanhaiyalal and Ratanlal respectively. The size of the residential plot in question was 58' x 19' each situated in Sardarpura, Barmer. The present suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs in the trial court on 16.12.2002 with the averments that after the sale in the year 1988, since the plaintiffs remained out of town in connection with their business away to Surat most of the times, taking advantage of their absence, the sellers (defendants) had taken back the forcible possession of the plots of land in question three months before the date of filing of the suit and the plaintiffs being the owners and in constructive and actual possession of the plots in question, were entitled to seek possession under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The suit was contested by the defendants/petitioners, however, the learned trial court decreed the same vide its judgment dated 02.05.2008 with the following findings in favour of plaintiffs:

(3.) Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Narendra Thanvi, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submitted that Sec. 6 of the Act of 1963 permits such suit to be filed only if the plaintiff has been dispossessed forcibly within six months prior to the date of filing of the suit and irrespective of the title of the plaintiff/s, person who establishes that he was in possession of the land in question, but has been so dispossessed forcibly, without due course of law, can file the suit for possession under Sec. 6 of the Act. He, however, submitted that in the present case, the plaintiffs had approached the court in 2002 and in the statement recorded by the learned trial court, they had admitted that soon after the purchase of the plot of land in question in 1988, the defendants had forcibly taken over the possession on account of bad intention and increase in the price of the land. He, therefore, submitted that the suit could not have been maintained under Sec. 6 of the Act of 1963 and it is not a suit for possession based on title of the plaintiff(s) and thus, the decree given by the court below deserves to be set aside. He relied upon the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M. Narasimha Reddy & Ors. v/s. Smt. K. Vinobha Devi & Ors. reported in, 2003 AIHC 618 and judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Gupta v/s. Surindra Rakyan & Anr. reported in, AIR 2007 (NOC) 932 (Raj.).