A. Hariprasad, J.

1. The interesting legal question arising for decision is as follows:

"In a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short the 'Act') in addition to a relief of recovery of possession of property based on previous possession, can any other relief be also claimed?"

2. Facts in short are as follows: The plaintiffs/respondents approached the trial court with a suit under Section 6 of the Act claiming recovery of possession of plaint B Schedule property on the strength of their previous possession. Along with that prayer, they sought for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant (petitioner herein) to demolish a portion of the compound wall and also for a decree of prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing into plaint B Schedule property.

3. The court below decreed the suit in full. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendant has come up in this revision.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The respondents, though served, did not contest.

5. I shall extract Section 6 of the Act for clarity:

"6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property:- (1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit.

(2) No suit under this section shall be brought-

(a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or

(b) against the Government.

(3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed.

(4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof."

6. The Section enables a person dispossessed of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law to recover possession thereof. On a reading of the Section, it is clear that any person dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, or any person claiming through such a person may file a suit for recovery of possession purely based on his possessory title. The Section further says that a decree can be granted in such a suit notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit by any of the parties. The restrictions imposed for granting a relief under the Section are two fold: Firstly, no suit under the provision shall be brought after expiry of six months from the date of dispossession. The second restriction is that no suit under Section 6 of the Act shall be entertained, if it is against the Government. It is therefore clear that the Section itself prescribes a period of limitation for filing such a suit as six months from the date of dispossession. Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Act clearly spells out that nothing in the Section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof.

7. A conjoint reading of the last limb of sub-section (1) and sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Act will clearly show that even a person claiming title to the property can resort to a suit for recovery of possession based on previous possession, if he is dispossessed not in accordance with law and if he brings the suit within a period of 6 months. He is not precluded from filing a suit for recovery of possession based on his title, even if he fails in a suit under Section 6 of the Act. But, if a plaintiff suffers a defeat in a suit for recovery of possession based on title paramount, he cannot subsequently file a suit under Section 6 of the Act for recovery of possession based on possessory title. Following are the obvious reasons for the above mentioned propositions.

8. It is well settled that absolute title is a bundle of rights in which actual possession is a very important constituent. Even right to