The court emphasized that under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the focus is on possession rather than title, affirming the summary nature of dispossession proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

(DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.)

Heard Mr. R. K. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Ms. N. B. Kayastha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked to challenge the order dated 13.07.2015 passed in Title Suit No.313/2005 whereby the learned Court of the Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup, Guwahati {presently the learned Court of the Civil Judge, No.1 Kamrup (M) at Guwahati} (for short, ‘the learned Trial Court’) had decreed a suit under Section 6 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963 (for short, ‘the Act of 1963’) in favour of the plaintiff.

3. For the purpose of deciding as to whether the jurisdiction so exercised by the learned Trial Court was in accordance with law, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the present proceedings.

4. From the materials on record, it is seen that one Debabala Chaliha (since deceased) had purchased a plot of land admeasuring 4 bighas 3 kathas 2 lechas vide the registered Sale Deed No.3989 dated 16.06.1961. The said land has been specifically described in Schedule A to the plaint. In the month of December, 1970, a partnership firm was formed in the name and style of M/s Chaliha Warehousing Company. Amongst the various partners, one of the partners was Late Debabala Chaliha. Late Debabala Chaliha during her lifetime leased out the Schedule A land to the said partnership firm with the permission to make construction like tea house, godown, staff quarters etc. and also to construct boundary walls over the said. In the year 1980, the partnership firm accordingly constructed a boundary wall surrounding the warehouse leaving vacant an area approximately 1 bigha 16 lechas. This 1 bigha 16 lechas of land which remained unbounded is the Schedule C land. A perusal of the plaint in Title Suit No.313/2005 though refers to various factual matters but taking into account that the instant proceedings is an outcome of a proceedings under Section 6 of the Act of 1963, the relevant facts would be that the plaintiff who is the owner of the Schedule A land by virtue of the land being bequeathed by Late Debabala Chaliha in its favour and was in possession over the land on 19.03.2005 was dispossessed by the defendants and more particularly the defendant No.4 from the Schedule-C land.

5. Under such circumstances, one of the Directors of the plaintiff Company filed an FIR on 20.03.2005 before the Officer- in-Charge of Dispur Police Station stating inter-alia that on 19.03.2005 at around 3:00 pm, the defendant No.4 along with 200 people entered into the vacant plot of land and ousted the labourers and security guards forcefully from the quarter situated on the plot. The said FIR was received on 20.03.2005. Subsequent thereto, another communication was written on 07.04.2005 to the Officer-in-Charge of Dispur Police Station giving further details as regards the incident dated 19.03.2005 and also the fact that the FIR was already filed on 20.03.2005.

6. It is very relevant to take note of that on 12.04.2005, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kamrup (M) had initiated a M proceedings being Case No.259 /2005, on the basis of the complaint so filed on 20.03.2005 and 07.04.2005, and accordingly, drew up a proceedings under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 thereby restraining the defendants from entering into the disputed land and also from erecting any type of construction over the disputed land to prevent any further breach of peace as well as to maintain law and order in the area with immedi