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 th