1. This Revision Application is filed by the original defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 or legal representatives of some of them.

2. To state in brief, the plaintiff-respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No.11 of 1989 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 for possession of the suit property on the ground that the contesting defendants had forcibly taken possession of the suit property by throwing away the articles of her tenant P.V.Varik from the suit property on 1.10.1981. According to the plaintiff, she had purchased the house 6 No.97 from defendant No.4 Nanibai Sawant on 1.10.1981 for consideration of Rs.5,000/- under the registered sale and she was put in possession of the suit house by defendant no.4. At that time, one Pandurang Vichare was occupying a part of the suit premises as a tenant. After the house was vacated by Pandurang, the plaintiff had inducted another tenant P.V.Varik in a part of the said house. According to her, the House No.97 as described in the plaint had an open Padvi, wfacing the open Padvi, there was a room and a hall. This portion of the property was in possession of the tenant Varik and this is the suit property. The remaining portion being a room and back side padvi is still in possession of the plaintiff. According to her, on 1.10.1981, at about 9 a.m. all the defendants came to the suit house and told P.V.Varik that there was a judgment in their favour and they were entitled to be put in possession. Saying so, they threw away household articles of P.V.Varik from the suit house and took forcible possession of the said padvi, hall and one room. On the same day, the tenant Varik informed the plaintiff about his dispossession by the defendants and the plaintiff lodged a report with the police. She also filed the suit for possession under Section 6 contending that the defendants had no legal right, title or interest and 7 they had forcibly dispossessed her from the house without following due process of law.

3. Initially, defendant Nos. 2 and 4 filed written statement, Exhibit 16, denying the contentions of the plaintiffs about purchase of the house as well as possession of the tenant P.V.Varik and taking forcible possession by the defendants. They also contended that defendant No.4 Nanibai had not received the consideration for sale of the said house NO.97. It was contended that one Vithoba Shama, who was defendant No.3, had filed Regular Civil Suit No.3/86 claiming partition and separate possession of the property including the suit house and that suit was pending. Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 5 filed Pursis Exhibit 21 and adopted written statement filed by the defendant Nos. 2 and 4. It is material to note that after the death of the defendant No.4 Nanibai, her L.Rs. did not stick up to her stand and they supported the claim of the plaintiff.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the issues. The plaintiff examined herself and P.W.2 Pandurang who was the tenant in the suit house when she had purchased in 1981. On behalf of the contesting defendants, defendant 8 no.5 Sudhakar was examined as a witness. Some documents were also placed on record. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises on the basis of the sale deed executed by defendant no.4 Nanibai on 1.10.1981 and the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit house on the basis of the said sale deed. The learned trial court also came to the conclusion that the contesting defendants had taken forcible possession of the suit house on 1.10.1988. The said suit was filed within six months from the date of dispossession. The learned trial Court passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The said judgment and decree have been challenged in the present Revision Application.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgment and their evidence.

6. The le