In proceedings under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the court only assesses possession and timely filing of the suit post-dispossession, not ownership claims.

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. A. C. Sarmah, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. G. Bharadwaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. The instant proceedings is initiated by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) No. 1, Nalbari in Title Suit No.65/2016 whereby the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff holding inter-alia that the plaintiff was entitled for restoration of possession of the land described in Schedule-3 of the plaint from the defendants in terms with Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Act of 1963’).

3. The challenge so made to the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.01.2023 passed in Title Suit No.65/2016 is primarily on the ground that the learned Trial Court had exercised its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity.

4. To ascertain as regards the legality of the impugned judgment and decree, it is relevant to take note of the relevant facts which led to the filing of the instant proceedings.

5. The respondent herein as plaintiff had instituted a suit under Section 6 of the Act of 1963 seeking restoration of possession of the Schedule-3 land from the defendants. The said suit was registered and numbered as Title Suit No.65/2016. In the said suit, the respondent herein as plaintiff claimed that he along with his brothers were the owners of a plot of land admeasuring 1 bigha 1 katha on the basis of a purchase made vide a registered Deed of Sale bearing Deed No.781 dated 27.09.1994. The said land purchased is covered by Dag No.914 of KP Patta No.445 of village-Amani under Police Station-Belsor under Mouza-Khetri (Dharmapur) in the district of Nalbari, Assam. The said land has been specifically described in Schedule-1 to the plaint. It has been further mentioned that in addition to the Schedule-1 land, the plaintiff had also entered into possession of an adjoining plot of land admeasuring 2 bighas 1 katha 16 lechas in same Dag and Patta as the same was lying as a “pitani” (marshy land). The said plot of land had been specifically described in Schedule-3 to the plaint. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was in possession of the Schedule-1 and the Schedule-3 lands which together admeasures 3 bighas 2 kathas 16 lechas and the same was more specifically described in Schedule-2 to the plaint. It was also averred in the plaint that in the year 1995-96, the Revenue Authorities sold in auction the total land of the suit Patta for non-payment of the revenue by the pattadars. One Sri Bapuram Barman had purchased the total land of the suit Patta and the Dag in Auction Sale Case No.88/95-96. However, the said person could not enter into possession. Be that as it may, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with Sri Bapuram Barman for purchase of the suit Patta for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,56,640/-, and in that regard, had applied for sale permission. It is the further case of the plaintiff that after obtaining the permission when the plaintiff went to Sri Bapuram Barman for purchase, the said Sri Bapuram Barman informed the plaintiff that the Schedule-3 land was sold to the petitioners herein by the registered Deed of Sale bearing Sale Deed No.1/16 dated 01.01.2016. In that regard, the plaintiff has also filed a suit challenging the said Deed of Sale. Be that it may, the plaintiff continued to remain in possession, but to the utter shock and surprise of the plaintiff, on 23.05.2016 at around 11:00 AM, some unknown persons equipped with dangerous weapons such as lathis, daos etc. forcefully entered into the Schedule-3 plot of land and dispossessed the plaintiff. It is under s