RAM PRASANNA SHARMA, J.

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment/decree dated 8-4-2005 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, (FTC), Mungeli CG in Civil Suit No. 1-A/2004 wherein the said court decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for possession of land and house constructed upon Khasra No. 543/2 area 0.03 acres situated at village Mohbhata Patwari Halka No. 47, Tahsil Mungeli, Dist. Bilaspur now District Mungeli.

2. The suit bearing registration 1-A/2004 is filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellants/defendants for recovery of possession of suit land and house on the ground that he purchased the same from one Balram who was father of the appellant No.2 Rajkumari. Appellant No.2 Rajkumari is wife of the appellant No.1 Mannu Ram and by registered sale deed dated 15-7-2003 he took possession of the suit land and since then he was residing in the suit property. Balram died on 21-7- 2003. Last rite of Balram was performed in the suit house as requested by the wife and other daughters of late Balram. Accordingly the suit land and house were given to the said persons for performing of the last rites. On 3-8-2003 in absence of respondent the appellants forcibly entered into the suit land/house and unauthorisedly occupied the property in question. They did not vacate even after request of the respondent that is why he lodged a report in concerned Police Station and he was advised to go to the Court by the Police Authorities, that is why suit under Sections 5 & 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, "the Act, 1963") was filed before the trial Court.

3. As per version of the appellants they are legal heirs of deceased Balram, therefore, they are entitled to retain possession of the suit house. The appellants never dispossessed the plaintiff because they are having possession on the suit land and house during the life time of deceased Balram. Sale deed was executed by playing fraud and same is void. The trial Court after marshalling of the oral and documentary evidence recorded finding that respondent/plaintiff is owner of the suit land by virtue of registered sale deed dated 15-7-2003 and appellants forcibly entered into house and unauthorizedly holding the possession of the suit land and house.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits as under:

(I) The trial Court decided the title of the plaintiff in the suit though question of title cannot be adjudicated in the suit filed under Sections 5 & 6 of the Act, 1963.

(ii) The trial Court wrongly came to the conclusion that the appellants have wrongly dispossessed the respondent from the suit land and house, but failed to consider Ex.D/1 to D/4 in which continuous possession of the appellants is shown, therefore, finding of the trial Court is not proper.

(iii) The respondent has wrongly filed the suit under Sections 5 & 6 of the Act, 1963 because both Sections of the Act are different in nature, therefore, suit was not maintainable.

(iv) The trial Court passed a decree on the basis of title under Section 5 of the Act, 1963. The suit is valued at Rs.51,000/-, but court fees was fixed as per norms of Section 6 of the said Act, therefore, the trial Court ought to have directed the respondent to affix deficit court fees. Hence, being insufficiency of court fees, impugned judgment is bad-in-law.

(v) 1. Proceeding under Sections 5 & 6 of the Act, 1963 is in nature of summary proceeding, hence title cannot be considered in the nature of proceeding, therefore, finding of the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the finding of the trial Court is based on proper marshaling of the evidence and same is not liable to be interfered while invoking jurisdiction of the appeal.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment/decree passed by the trial Court.

7. Pw/2 Ramkhilawan and PW/4 Urmila Bai dep