A plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property can succeed on the basis of prior possession, even if the suit is brought more than six months after the dispossession, and that a wrongdoer cannot resist the suit by showing that the title and right to possession are in a third person.

JUDGEMENT :- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Manipur. in Civil Appeal No. 89 of 1970 (41 of 1971).

2. The plaintiffs brought a suit for eviction of the defendants from a plot of land measuring about five acres. Their case was that they were in possession of the land since 1944 and had jhuming cultivation therein at intervals of 10 to 20 years. While the cultivation could not be done, they used to collect timbers, wooden posts and other building materials from jungles on the suit land. They were dispossessed from the suit land by the defendants on 24th January, 1968. The defendants were found dinging the land for the purpose of raising houses on the land without the consent or permission of the plaintiffs. They, therefore, came with the present suit, inter alia, for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere with their possession and evict them from the disputed land, as stated above, after demolition of their houses and structures on the suit-land. The learned trial Court framed the following issues :

"1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ?

3. Whether the land in question is a public land or private land ?

4. Whether the defendants took permission of the Khullakpe concerned before settling at the land in question ?

5. Whether the plaintiffs art entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?"

3. After trial, the learned Munsiff dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge upheld the judgement and decree of the learned Munsiff, The learned Courts below dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove "right of ownership" to the suit land.

4. Shri A. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-appellants, submits that the learned Courts below misconceived the law involved in the suit and as such their judgements and decrees have been vitiated. The learned Lower Appellate Court has started by saving that the plaintiffs suit is based on proprietary title, whereas, learned Counsel submits, his suit is not one based on title but one based on possession. At the same time learned Counsel submits that the suit is under Section 6(4) of the Specific Relief Act. 1963 (hereinafter called the Act). Section 6 of the said Act may be quoted :

"6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property - (1) If any person is dispossessed without hip consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that, may be set up in such suit

(2) No suit under this section shall be brought -

(a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or

(b) against, the Government.

(3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed.

(4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof."

Sub-Section (1) of this section clearly shows that the suit contemplated by this Sub-Section is one purely based on possession and for possession. It is of a summary nature and appeal has been barred from the decree passed in such a suit, and the period of limitation for the suit is also very short, viz.. six months. Sub-Section (4) contemplates a suit of a regular nature to establish title of the plaintiff and for recovery of possession. In the case of Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C. Alexandar. AIR 1968 SC 1165, it has been held by the Supreme Court :

"Provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of Specific Relief Act are not mutually exclusive so that after the period of six months is over it cannot be said that a suit based on prior possession alone is not possible. Section 8 of the Specific Relief Act does not limit the kinds of suit but only lays down that the procedur