The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a suit under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the court may not go into the title of the plaintiffs, but no suit under Sec. 6 can be brought against the Government.

1. Plaintiffs-petitioners, aggrieved by the judgment dated 20th of June, 2006 passed by the Munsif, II, Munger in Title Suit No. 69 of 2001, have preferred this application.

2. Stamp Reporter has objected to the maintainability of this civil revision application. It is relevant here to state that the plaintiffs have confined civil revision application against the judgment only but have not assailed the decree following the judgment.

3. Short facts, giving rise to the presWnt application, are that the plaintiffs filed; suit for recovery of possession of the suit land described in Schedule-I, given in the foot of the plaint and further, for a direction to the defendant to vacate the suit land and handover the possession thereof, to the plaintiffs within reasonable time.

4. According to the plaintiffs, they were coming in possession of the suit land measuring approximately 660 sq.ft. of land. The suit land is a Khasmahal land which would be evident from paragraph no. 12 of the plaint, same reads as follows:

"12. That the said outer open sahan of the plaintiffs measuring approximately 660 (six hundred sixty) square feet of land appertaining to Khas Mahal plot no. 60 is fully described in Schedule I given at the foot of the plaint and the same hereinafter for the sake of brevity is called as the suit-land."

5. Plaintiffs are not claiming any title over the suit land and according to them, it is a Khasmahal land. The Court below, on consideration of the material on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have no title nor possession over the suit land and accordingly, held the suit to be not maintainable.

6. Mr. Keshav Srivastava, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the plaintiffs have sought relief under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" and hence, the Court below, misdirected itself in going to the question of title, while holding the suit to be not maintainable. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Yar Muhammad and Another vs. Laxmi Das and Others, AIR 1959 Allahabad 1 and my attention has . been drawn to paragraph nos. 11 and 12 of the judgment, which read as follows: "11. Possession is prima facie evidence of title and if a person who is in possession is dispossessed he has a right to claim back possession from the person who dispossess him. In an ordinary suit of that kind if the plaintiff succeeds in establishing his title as well as possession he is bound to succeed. Even if he is unable to prove his title he can succeed on the basis of prior possession alone. But the suit can easily defeated if the defendant succeeds in proving a good title in himself or another. In that case the presumption in favour of the plaintiff is displaced. In such a suit, therefore, the title of both the parties can be brought in issue and can be considered by the court. A suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act is however an entirely different kind of action. That section gives a special privilege to persons in possession who take action promptly. In case they are dispossessed it entitles them to succeed simply by proving:

(1) that they were in possession,

(2) that they have been dispossessed by the defendant,

(3) that the dispossession is not in accordance with law, and

(4) that the dispossession took place within six months of the suit.

"12. No question of title either of the plaintiff or of the defendant can be raised or gone into in that case. The plaintiff will be entitled to succeed without proving any title on which he can fall back upon and the defendant cannot succeed even though he may be in a position to establish the best of all titles. The restoration of possession in such a suit is however always subject to a regular title suit and the person who has the real title or even the better title cannot therefore be prejudiced in any way by a decree in such a suit.