Sunil Dutta Mishra, J. – Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. This Civil Revision Application has been filed against the judgment dated 16.03.2021 and decree dated 27.03.2021 passed by learned Sub Judge-XIV, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No.703 of 2012 filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act whereby the suit of the opposite party/plaintiff was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

3. The fact, in brief, is that opposite party/plaintiff filed Title Suit No.703 of 2012 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act stating that he had purchased the suit land vide registered sale deed dated 26.11.2007 from the recorded Raiyat (title holder), namely, Jago Mandal for valuable consideration and mutated his name in Anchal Sirista and got rent receipt in lieu thereof. It is further stated that the plaintiff erected boundary wall, installed grill and locked up the gate. The case of the opposite party is that the petitioners/defendants had attempted to take possession of the suit land for which a proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. was initiated vide Misc. Case No.655 of 2007 in which the S.D.O., Sadar, Bhagalpur decided the said case in favour of the plaintiff’s vendor, namely, Jago Mandal. It is further alleged that the petitioners/defendants broke the lock of the gate and dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land. The proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. vide Misc. Case No.904 of 2012 was initiated which was decided in favour of the plaintiff in which the father-in-law of the plaintiff was first party on behalf of the plaintiff and vide order dated 29.08.2012, the defendants were restrained to interfere with the lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. However, after the said order, he has been dispossessed on 30.08.2012. Accordingly, the opposite party/plaintiff filed the instant suit for restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act without adjudication of the title.

4. The petitioners/defendants, on summon, appeared and contested the suit by filing their common written statement asserting that the suit land was purchased by Mahadev Mistri, common ancestor of the petitioners, vide registered sale deed dated 10.07.1962 from Md. Abdul Rashid Khan, who was the father of Md. Zakki and Md. Muso (Vendor of sale deed of Jago Mandal from whom the opposite party has purchased the suit land). Mahadev Mistri was in peaceful possession of the purchased land and after his death, his successors/petitioners are in peaceful possession over the suit land. Petitioners/defendants got their names mutated and paying rent and getting rent receipts. Land purchased by the plaintiff is fake one and he has to prove his title. It is also stated that the petitioners filed Title Suit No.679 of 2012 before filing of the instant suit in which opposite party/plaintiff is also made party as defendant no.3 and the said suit belongs to the same land.

5. The learned trial Court framed 8 issues. Both the parties led their evidences; oral and documentary and after hearing both parties, the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment and decree.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the plaintiff has failed to prove the specific date, mode and manner of his dispossession from the suit land which was sine-qua-non for adjudication under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The learned trial Court failed to consider the evidence of PW-3 in which he has admitted the earlier filing of Title Suit No.679 of 2012 by the petitioners. He has further submitted that the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act must be filed within six months from the date of dispossession but the date of dispossession of the plaintiff has not been established. Accordingly, the suit is liable to be dismissed. He has next submitted that the opposite party/plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land and the petitioners have title and possession over the suit land, whic