DINESH DUBEY Vs. AMBIKA PRASAD DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2013 and 06.08.2013 respectively, passed in Title Suit No.08 of 2011 by the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) - 1 Jamshedpur, whereby the petitioner was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the opposite party/ plaintiff within three months.

(2.) Learned counsel, for the petitioner/ defendant, has submitted that the court below has committed manifest error by not appreciating the fact that the plaintiff/ opposite party, after receiving money in lieu of his share in the ancestral property, was residing separately in the house, constructed by him, at Railway Co-operative Housing Colony, Bagbera and not in the suit property nor was he dispossessed from the occupation of the rooms rather he had vacated the suit property by relinquishing his share on receipt of the money for the share in the suit premises. It is argued that it is evinced from the testimony of D.W. - 2, i.e., the mother, wherein she has deposed that the suit property was purchased by her and after the death of her husband, the opposite party/ plaintiff had been paid money in lieu of his share in the property. That the suit property belongs to her exclusively and the petitioner/ defendant is residing with her. That she had constructed the house.

(3.) Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party/ plaintiff, has submitted that no error has been committed by the court below. That, in fact, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party had received money in lieu of his share of the ancestral property is not supported by any document. It is submitted that though the mother has stated that the opposite party has been paid money in lieu of his share in the ancestral property and left the suit premises and is residing in the house constructed by him, but in cross-examination, she has admitted that till date the suit property has not been partitioned. The court below has examined and discussed the evidence and on cogent reasons has recorded its satisfaction, while arriving at the finding that no documentary evidence has been produced by the petitioner/ defendant to substantiate the case that the opposite party/ plaintiff had received money in lieu of the share and was not residing in the suit premises. It is contended that Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, envisages that title has not be looked into rather what has to be established is that the dispossession had taken place within six months from filing of the suit.