ORDER : This is a petition filed to revise the judgment and decree dated 31st January, 1970, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapuca, in a suit filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner herein under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession of land called "Anta Vithe Naik" situated at Volpem along with mesne profits. The plaintiff had contended that he was in possession of the suit land and that he was dispossessed from it without his consent on 10-6-1966. The suit was filed before the expiry of six months from the date of alleged dispossession of the plaintiff. The defendant contended that he was in possession of the suit land as tenant of Dessai's family and that he had not dispossessed the plaintiff. The lower court found that on 10-6-1966 the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit land and decreed the suit.

2. The only point on which the learned advocate for the revision petitioner argued is that the lower court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the revision petitioner had contended that he was in possession of the suit land as tenant and as per Tenancy Act civil courts cannot decide the question of tenancy. Decisions in Bhimaji Shankar v. Dundappa Vithappa, AIR 1966 SC 166; Dhondi Tukaram v. Dadoo Piraji, AIR 1954 Bom 100 and Beni Madho Singh v. Prag, AIR 1949 All 510 were cited by the learned advocate for the revision petitioner in support of his argument.

3. The point for determination in this case is whether there is any force in the contention of the revision petitioner.

4. The rulings cited on behalf of the revision petitioner relate to cases which were not filed under S. 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act provides for a summary remedy for restoration of possession. The question of title or nature of possession is not considered in a case filed under S. 6 of the Specific Relief Act. In Lai Bahadur Singh v. Suraipal Singh, AIR 1946 All 486, it has been held as follows :

"The summary cause of action provided by Section 9 (now Section 6), Specific Relief Act was not the same thing as the cause of action which is really a cause of action based on title, covered by the relevant sections of the U. P. Tenancy Act and that the relief claimed in a suit under the Specific Relief Act was not such as might have been claimed in any suit or application based on a cause of action under the machinery of the U. P. Tenancy Act."

In the case on hand no question of title arises. The only point to be decided in it is whether the respondent herein was in possession of the suit land and he was dispossessed without his consent and that he had filed the suit before the expiry of six months from the date of his alleged dispossession. To my mind, in a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act if the defendant contends that he is in possession of the land as a tenant, the civil court will not be barred from entertaining the suit because the suit is for summary remedy for restoration of possession and it has nothing to do with the title in respect of the property or nature of possession. The trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

5. The suit being under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act in which question of title is not decided by the Court, the lower Court should not have entertained the claim in respect of mesne profits. The decree passed by the lower Court as far as it is concerned with mesne profits is against law. No doubt the revision petitioner did not contend that the decree in respect of the mesne profits is against law but when it has come to the notice of this Court that illegality has been committed by the lower Court, this Court can pass appropriate orders exercising its revisional jurisdiction.

6. For the reasons given above, the revision petition is allowed in part. The judgment and decree of the lower Court as far as they are concerned with delivery of possession of land to the plaintiff, are upheld, but they are set aside

Click Here to Read the rest of this document