A plaintiff can recover possession of immovable property if they prove prior possession and unlawful dispossession, even without establishing ownership under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

ORDER :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

First defendant in O.S.No.112/2013 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru, is the revision petitioner challenging the judgment dated 10.06.2016 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

2. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition are as under:

Plaintiff and first defendant being the brothers, along with their mother succeeded to the property of late Rudrappa which includes coffee estate called ‘Doopadacool D Estate’ (‘Estate’ for short) situated at Nagenahalli village, measuring 167 acres as per the records. Said property includes several structures including a bungalow morefully described in the schedule to the plaint which is culled out hereunder and hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’.

“All the piece and parcel of the bungalow comprising Varanda Hall, Bed rooms, kitchen, bathroom, toilet, withal amenities like TV, Refrigerator, sofa, chairs, cots etc., forming part of Doopad Cool ‘D’ Estate comprising in Sy.No.35/p situated at Nagenahalli village, Jagara Hobli, Bindiga Grama Panchayath, Chikkamagaluru Taluk and District, morefully shown in the annexed photographs, measurements and boundaries for the bungalow are as under:

Measurement of the bungalow:

East to West : 45 feet

North to South:40 feet

Boundaries for the bungalow:

East : Road to Estate,

West : H.D.Chandramouli’s House,

North : Backyard of bungalow and road,

South : Drying yard.

3. It is contended that the plaintiff, his mother Smt.Susheelamma, his wife and daughters are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

4. It is further contended that the extent and details of the respective shares of the parties are subject matter of separate litigation pending between the parties.

5. The plaintiff further contended that he was dispossessed from the suit property on 20.03.2013 without due recourse to law and therefore, he has sought for restitution of possession of the suit property under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

6. Plaintiff further contended that the second defendant being the Manager of the Estate retired couple of years ago. The third defendant is the driver and defendant Nos.4, 5 and 7 are the labours in the Estate, defendant Nos.6 and 8 are the wives of defendant Nos.5 and 7.

7. The plaintiff, his mother, wife and children have been in possession and enjoyment the suit property since 1978 and thereafter, plaintiff shifted his family to a rented house in Chikkamagaluru town in the year 1996 for the purpose of education of his first daughter and later shifted to a new house in the year 2005 and since then he is residing there.

8. Plaintiff also obtained Tata Sky connection to the suit property in the year 2007 and also got telephone connection about 15 years ago. Plaintiff used to lock the premises and also the gate situated on the south eastern corner and used to open the bungalow whenever he came to stay in the bungalow and used the other structures adjoining the said bungalow.

9. It is further averment in the plaint that on Wednesday 20^th March 2013, plaintiff left the Estate at 3.30 pm and reached his house situated at Spencer Road, Chikkamagaluru. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 entered the bungalow compound around 4.55 pm through drying yard No.1 and tried to break open the door lock put on the main road of the bungalow that can be seen in CCTV camera. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 succeeded to cut open the lock at 5.05 pm and entered inside the gate. Thereafter, opened the second lock inside the veranda at 5.07 pm. Later, fifth defendant also joined defendant No.3 in the act and they