S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Whether the dispossession envisaged in S.6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 , includes within its sweep the flagrant and contumacious violation of symbolical possession of immovable property duly delivered in the course of law - has come to be the spinal issue in this civil revision.

2. The facts herein call for a somewhat brief notice and indeed highlight how the vagaries of law can lead to grave delays and thus virtual injustice for a suitor seeking relief through its processes. The petitioners herein are members of a joint Hindu Mitakshara family of which Kumar Kalyan Prasad (petitioner No. 1) is the Karta and manager and the suit under S.6 of the Specific Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the recovery of possession of the suit property had been filed in a representative capacity. It is unnecessary to recount the somewhat tangled facts and it suffices to mention that way back in the year 1956 the petitioners had filed Title Suit No. 130 seeking eviction of the opposite party and securing the possession of the suit property. Though the suit was dismissed by the Munsif, 1st Court, Darbhanga, and the lower appellate Court upheld the dismissal, the High Court in Second Appeal No. 125 of 1961, decided on the 5th April, 1963, decreed the suit in favour of the petitioners for recovery of possession with regard to the suit land by ejecting the defendants as also for recovery of arrears of rental. The decree of the High Court was duly executed in Execution Case No. 113 of 1963 actual possession was secured on the 10th Nov. 1965.

3. It is the petitioners case that having got delivery of possession they locked the house and deputed two of the servants to keep a watch over the same. However, on the very night of the 10th Nov. 1965, the opposite party with the help of other associates forcibly entered the house and took possession of the same by ousting the plaintiffs servants and also assaulted them. A criminal case was then filed by Jageshwar Bhandari, one of the petitioners servants, under Ss.147, 448, 452, and 323 of the Penal Code in which the accused persons were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. The conviction had been maintained up to the highest level by the High Court. The opposite party, however, clung to the property and despite repeated demands refused to give up their illegal possession and indeed started erecting new structures over the suit property and putting down the old ones. The petitioners then instituted the suit under S.6 of the Act giving rise to the present revision.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants on a variety of grounds and on the pleadings of the parties as many as eight issues were framed of which the material ones are issue Nos. 5 and 6 in the terms following :

"5. Is the delivery of possession given by Nazir to the plaintiffs over the disputed land a mere paper transaction?

6.Are the plaintiffs dispossessed of the disputed land as alleged?"

5. In a prolonged trial, which seems to have extended to the inordinate length of 15 years, the Additional Munsif, Darbhanga, came to the categoric conclusion that the plaintiff-petitioners had acquired clear title over 2 kathas and 19 dhurs of land which was the suit property but held that in the execution proceedings the Nazir had only delivered symbolical possession of the property and the recording of the delivery of actual physical possession was not established. Taking a narrowly constricted view of the matter that the plaintiff-petitioners were not given physical delivery of possession over the suit land, he held that the question of their actual dispossession therefrom could not arise and, therefore, they had no cause of action under S.6 of the Act to file the suit. Consequently the same was dismissed and the petitioners pointedly assailed this finding in the present civil revision.

6. Though the finding of the Court below that the actual recording of delivery of possession of the suit pro