Possession can be reclaimed swiftly under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, allowing immediate remedies against illegal dispossession, disregarding title disputes.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.

2. The present revision petition arises out of the impugned judgment/decree dated 22nd September, 2021 passed by SCJ-CUM-RC (North East) Karkardooma Courts Complex, New Delhi (hereinafter "Trial Court") in CS No. 391/2016 titled Kamal Kishore v Balwinder Singh by which the suit of the Plaintiff/Respondent Shri Kamal Kishore (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), has been decreed. The case of the Plaintiff is that he is the owner of the West part of property No. A-40 (part) Mansarovar Park, Shahdara, Delhi, (hereinafter "suit property") which was allegedly illegally broken into by the Defendant/Petitioner (hereinafter "Defendant") who was the owner of the remaining part of the suit property.

3. The suit was filed under Sections 6 and 39 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963 (hereinafter "the Act") seeking decree of declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction in relation to the suit property. The reliefs sought in the plaint are as under:

"i) Pass a decree for recovery of possession of the plaintiff's immoveable property standing at A-40 (West Part), Mansarovar Park, G.T.Road, Shahdara, Delhi.

ii) Pass a mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the Defendant for restoration of the main door and partition wall of the plaintiff's immoveable property standing at A-40 (West Part), Mansarovar Park, G.T.Road, Shahdara, Delhi.

iii) Cost of the present suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the Defendant."

4. The written statement was filed by the Defendant, and evidence was led by both the parties. The Trial Court came to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence, that the Plaintiff has been able to establish that the property was purchased from one Sh. Monu Aggarwal. Electricity bills to this effect issued in the name of Shri Monu Aggrawal were perused. The Trial Court also observed that the photograph PW1/X8-13 placed on the record of the Trial Court clearly show that there was a wall which was erected between the Plaintiff's and Defendant's portion which was demolished by the Defendant. Further Exhibit DW6/1, which is relied upon by both the parties also reveals the entrance to the Plaintiff's side of the property having been freshly plastered with the evidence of a door bell space in the wall which showed that there was a separate entrance from the street, to the suit property.

5. The Trial Court further records based on the testimony of two independent witnesses, Sh. Nanak Chand and Sh. Tapsi Ram that Sh. Monu Aggarwal was in possession of the suit property till 28th June 2001. Thereafter, the Plaintiff purchased the property from Sh. Monu Aggarwal and was using it for the purposes of residence of his mother till her death in the year 2006. The Plaintiff was not regularly residing in the property in question and he used to occasionally visit the suit property. The findings of the Trial Court are relevant and are set out below:

"16. PW1 during his cross examination categorically admitted that there is a partition wall between the portion shown in red and the portion shown in green in the site plan Ex. PWL/D2. The suit property as a portion of Ranjeet Kaur has been reflected in the lay out plan, part of DW9/A which is an admitted document by the defendant. It also has a photograph of the property A-40 which shows a wall dividing 3/4th and 1/4th share of the property. Further PW1 during his cross examination was confronted with the site plan Ex. PW1/D2 where he a