The necessity for clear factual findings regarding possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is critical in summary proceedings concerning unlawful dispossession.

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Ms. N. Kakati, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. P. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2.

2. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked to challenge the judgment and decree dated 04.06.2024 passed in Title Suit No.20/2021 whereby the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2 at Jorhat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) had decreed the suit under Section 6 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963 (for short, ‘SR Act’) in favour of the plaintiff.

3. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been invoked on the ground that the learned Trial Court had exercised its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity, and as such, this is a fit case for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.

4. Ms. N. Kakati, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that taking into account that the proceedings under Section 6 of the SR Act is limited to ascertain as to whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land and whether he was dispossessed otherwise in due course of law, the learned Trial Court ought to have come to a categorical finding that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land on the date of his alleged dispossession. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the instant case, the findings of facts so arrived at in Issue No.(v) would show that the learned Trial Court was not certain as to whether the plaintiff was actually dispossessed and on conjectures and surmises arrived at the findings that the plaintiff was dispossessed. It is therefore submitted that this is a fit case for interference.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 submitted that the plaintiff was in possession of 16 lechas of land which was the Schedule-B land and the learned Trial Court had rightly passed the said judgment. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 further submitted that in the instant case, the findings of facts so arrived at are on the basis of the evidence which would clearly show that the plaintiff was in possession of the 16 lechas of land when the defendants on 20.02.2016 had dispossessed him.

6. Taking into account the respective submissions, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant proceedings. The respondent No.1 as plaintiff had instituted a suit under Section 6 of the SR Act stating inter-alia that the father of the plaintiff purchased a plot of land admeasuring 1 bigha 4 kathas 6 ½ lechas covered by PP No.57 (old)/02 (new) Dag No.397(old)/32, 33(new) in the year 1956 vide the registered Sale Deed No.1612 dated 03.05.1956 and was in possession of the said land by constructing a kutcha house in a part situated by the side of AT Road and used to carry out the business of books and stationery in the said house with bamboo fencing around the part. On account of the health problem, the father of the plaintiff had executed the Deed of Sale bearing Deed No.90 dated 10.01.1961 thereby the entire land was sold keeping only 1 ½ lechas as unsold land. It has been alleged that it was inadvertently mentioned as 1 ½ lechas was left unsold but it should have been 1 ½ kathas.

7. Be that as it may, the said 1 ½ kathas of the land, however, remained in possession of the plaintiff which has been specifically described in Schedule-A to the plaint. It has been further alleged that