KAN SINGH Vs. LAXMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-petitioner seeks to quash the decree and judgment dated 17. 10. 1996 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sawai Madhopur whereby the suit instituted by him u/sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short "the Act") was dismissed.

(2.) THE suit was filed by the petitioner on 21. 7. 1976 with the averments that the defendant-respondents dispossessed him without his consent and otherwise then in due course of law from the property in question and they were entitled to recover possession u/s. 6 of the Act. THE respondents submitted written statement stating therein that on 4. 5. 1976 the petitioner compromised the matter and executed `supurdginama' in favour of the respondents in respect of the said property. As many as six issues were framed by the trial Court. THE petitioner examined seven witnesses whereas seventeen witnesses were produced by the respondents. After bearing the arguments the trial Court dismissed the suit of the petitioner as indicated hereinabove.

(3.) NOW I proceed to discuss the authorities relied upon by Mr. Mishra learned counsel appearing for the defendant-respondents. In Padartha Amat vs. Siba Sahu (1), it was held that "when the Legislature with its intelligence has deprived parties of a right of appeal against the order passed u/s. 6 of Specific Relief Act, the High Court while exercising its revisional power will not re-appreciate the evidence even though on appreciation of such evidence it may be possible to take a different view of the matter. "