IMPORTANT POINT
A proceeding under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is intended to provide immediate relief for unlawful dispossession, focusing on possession rather than title, and the High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to jurisdictional errors.

JUDGMENT :

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

Heard Mr. S Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S K Singh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. B Puchilal, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is filed assailing judgment and decree dated 29.07.2019 passed in TS No. 46/2015 by the learned Civil Judge at Tezpur, Sonitpur.

3. The background facts of the present litigation can be summarized as follows:

I. The respondent herein preferred a title suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1963) for recovery of possession of the suit land by evicting the petitioner defendant by demolition and removing one Ekshali Tin House.

II. The plaintiff pleaded that the suit land measuring 12 Lechas covered under Dag No. 1458 of Periodic Patta No. 419 has been in the occupation of the plaintiffs as tenant since the date of his predecessor-in-interest constructing houses thereon and the holding No. 2222 is still recorded in the name of the plaintiff’s mother.

III. It is the further case of the plaintiff that a suit was filed by the earlier landlord of the plaintifffor enhancement of rent under the provision of Assam (Non Agricultural Urban Areas) Tenancy Act, 1955 claiming that the plaintiff is their tenant in respect of the suit land and adjacent suit land from the days of their predecessor-in-interest. It is also case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is having electricity connection in the suit premises, however, the APDCL disconnected such electricity connection on 06.10.2015 on an application filed by the defendant and without hearing the plaintiff.

IV. It is also pleaded that the defendant is now claiming that he had purchased the suit land and its adjacent land along with the houses standing thereon from the previous owners. However, the houses and structures standing on the land belong to the plaintiffs. The defendant with the help of Tezpur Police Station had taken the male members of the family of the plaintiff to the Tezpur Police Station and forcibly occupied the suit land and constructed a tin roof and wall ekshali house in the suit land.

V. It is specifically pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant had no possession over the suit land prior to 20.09.2015 i.e. the date of forceful eviction.

VI. The defendant by filing written statement took a stand that the holding No. 2222 belongs to Sona Devi, wife of Bhagaban Sarma, who resided thereon along with four sons. Sona Devi died about 35 years back leaving behind her four sons including the plaintiff. Another brother of the plaintiff namely Ashok Sarma died leaving behind his wife Smt. Sugandhi Sarma and therefore 1/4th of the share of the property devolved upon said Sugandhi Sarma and said Sugandhi Sarma has executed registered sale deed in respect of her share and since then the defendant has been residing over the suit land.

VII. It was also pleaded by the defendant that the plaintiff had no possession over the suit land and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.

VIII. The plaintiff side adduced three witnesses and exhibited certain documents. The defendant also adduced oral as well as documentary evidence and examined four witnesses.

IX. The learned trial court below framed as many as eight issues. After consideration of the pleading and evidences led by the parties, the learned trial court came to a conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit premises till 20.09.2015 and the defendant illegally dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land without complying with due process of law. Accordingly, the decree was passed, which is under challenge in the present revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC.

4. The decision of the learned trial court can be summarized as follows:

I. The plaintiff through his own evidence and evidence of PW2 proved that the occurrence took place on 20.09.2015 and he was taken by the