Plaintiff must prove prior possession within six months of dispossession under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act; mere claims without credible evidence of personal knowledge are insufficient.

ORDER :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

1. The matter is taken up for disposal with the consent of the parties, though it is listed for Orders.

2. Heard Ms.Aditi, Advocate for Sri Sampath A, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M.B.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the revision petitioner whose suit in O.S No.2148/2006 on the file of the XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act came to be dismissed.

4. Validity of the said judgment of dismissal of the suit is called in question in this revision petition.

5. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

Revision Petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit contending that plaintiff was in possession of the portion of the property bearing district No.5/3 carved out of Sy.No.84/2 Jayamma Building, Murugeshpalya, Kodihalli, Bengaluru-560 078, comprising of a hall, room and a kitchen in total measuring 3 squares within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule to the plaint, morefully described hereunder and hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’.

“All the piece and parcel of portion of property bearing District 5/3, carved out of Sy.No.84/2, Jayamma Building, Murugeshpalya, Kodihalli, Bengaluru-560 078, comprising of a hall, room, kitchen and hall measuring three (3) square and bounded on:

East by: Portion of the same property in occupation of tenants.

West by: Portion of the same property in occupation of tenants,

North by: Passage and thereafter RCC building belonging to 5^th defendant,

South by: Property of Munireddy.”

6. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants, in the guise of executing the eviction decree obtained against G.N.Gowda, wrongfully dispossessed the petitioner/plaintiff from the suit property and therefore suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act came to be filed.

7. Suit, on due contest came to be dismissed.

8. Learned Trial Judge while dismissing the suit of the revision petitioner in O.S.No.2148/2006 by the judgment dated 17.11.2018 has supplied adequate reasons for dismissing the suit and has noted that plaintiff was not in possession of the property nor the defendants have evicted the plaintiff in the guise of executing the decree passed in eviction proceedings.

9. Paragraphs 18 to 21 of the judgment of the Trial Court is culled out hereunder for ready reference:

“18. On perusal of Ex.D.5 copy of the execution petition in No.136/2005 filed by defendant No.1 to 4 herein, it appears that the execution petition was filed to enforce the order of eviction passed in HRC No.1490/96. In the said proceedings, Ex.D-1 mahazar was drawn and through the said mahazar defendant No.1 to 4 were put in possession of the suit property. No doubt, there is an order of eviction filed by defendant No.5 herein in HRC 2463/93 against J.N.Gowda. No proceedings have been placed before the Court with regard to the dispossession of J.N.Gowda by 5^th defendant enforcing the order passed in HRC 2463/1993.

19. The other submission made by counsel for defendant No.1 to 4 that the plaintiff and 5^th defendant did not enter the witness box rather their respective power of attorney holders been examined. It is contended that they have no authority to depose all the acts of the principal. Hence, their evidence cannot be looked into in support of the contention, counsel relies the judgment reported in (2005)2 SCC 217 Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., and others. In the judgment, it is held