JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri Y. S. Mannan, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

2. The present application has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment dated 08.07.2019 and decree dated 17.07.2019 passed in Title Suit No. 40/2012 passed by learned Munsiff No. 1, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. The said suit was instituted by the petitioner as plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963(hereinafter the Act, 1963).

3. At the outset, the learned counsel has submitted that under Section 6(iii) of the Act, no appeal lies against any order or decree and therefore, the present revision petition has been filed.

4. Petitioners were the defendants in the Title Suit which was instituted under Section 6 of the Act. In the plaint, the present respondent who was the plaintiff, had averred that a plot of land measuring 2 katha 10 lechas was in the possession of the plaintiff in respect of which land revenue was also paid. On the west side of the suit land, the plaintiff had patta land and therefore the said suit land was used for thoroughfare. The patta lands were under Dag No. 225 and 226 which were in the name of the plaintiff and his mother. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that on 21.06.2012, the plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendants and in October, 2012, the defendants had posted concrete pillars on the land. Resultantly, the plaintiff had issued legal notice followed by institution of the present suit.

5. The defendants in their written statement separately filed, had contended that the plaintiff was never in possession of any part of the suit land which is covered by Dag No. 223. It has further been stated that the father of the plaintiff was the pattadar of land of annual patta no. 30 covered by Dag Nos. 225 and 226 and he had transferred the possession of the land to the defendant no. 1 on 12.03.1994 by executing a kutcha deed and on the said deed, the plaintiff and his brother were witnesses. The defendants claim to be in continuous and peaceful possession of the land till 2012 and the plaintiff, in spite of having knowledge about the transfer of the land covered by Dag Nos. 225 and 226 had got the names of the members of his family mutated in place of the father. In any case, it is the specific case of the defendants that they were in continuous and peaceful possession over the land and further averred that the plaintiff did not submit any document to show his possession.

6. The defendant no. 2 in his written statement had also stated that the plaintiff was never in possession of the plot of land covered by Dag No. 223 (suit land) which was in front of the plot of land covered by Dag Nos. 225 and 226.

7. The learned Trial Court upon perusal of the pleadings had formulated 9 (nine) numbers of issues. Out of those, the relevant issues would be issue nos. 5, 6 & 7. With regard to the issue no. 5, the learned Trial Court had come to a finding that the plaintiff was in possession since long over the plot of land covered by Dag No. 223 corresponding to touzi 97. The learned Court has also discussed the evidence of five numbers of PWs and also the deposition of the DWs who had mentioned above the other plot of land covered by Dag Nos. 225 and 226.

8. With regard to the issue no. 6, the learned Trial Court had come to a finding that the plaintiff was dispossessed on 21.06.2012 and accordingly the issue no. 8 with regard to entitlement for recovery was decided in favour of the plaintiff.

9. Shri A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court is perverse and the relevant materials on record have not been properly appreciated and rather, the judgment is based on irrelevant materials and extraneous considerations. He submits that the learned Trial Court had taken note of Ext. 4 which was a Jamabandi and a perusal of the same would show that the same