The need for a clear connection between the property claimed and the relief sought, and the availability of the civil court for establishing title.

1. - This revision petition has been filed by the defendant against the order dated 4.10.1996 passed by Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Tonk on the application made by the plaintiff respondent u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

2. Mst. Ulfatunissa Begam wife of Jahir Ali Khan had approached the court u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act for restoration of the possession of House No. 57 in Ward No. 4.

3. The defendant, now the petitioner, had denied the allegation and had come up with the plea that he had purchased the house in question by registered sale-deed for an amount of Rs. 3,000/- from one Sajid Ali. After recording the evidence of both the parties, the Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.), Tonk had passed an order under sub-clause (iv) of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for handing over the possession of Haveli No. 57 (Old)/House No. 54 (new) in ward No. 4.

4. The suit was filed on 25.5.1977 against the forcible dispossession alleged to have been taken by the petitioner on 16.4.1977.

5. On 27.2.1978, an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was moved to incorporate the house No. 54 instead of 57 as pleaded in the plaint, for the reason that as per the latest voters list, this house has been shown to be as 54 i.e. the plaintiff respondent wanted the substitution of the number of house No. 57 to house No. 54; that substitution was allowed.

6. The petitioner defendant had also moved an application for amendment of the written statement to show that he had purchased the property by registered sale-deed on 15.12.1976 from Sakhawat Ali, Sajid Ali and Majid Ali and to place on record the registered sale-deed dated 15.12.1976 on the record even though in the original written statement it was pleaded earlier that he was put in possession by the said owners in view of the agreement to sell. This amendment moved by the petitioner defendant on 16.8.1991 was ultimately allowed by the High Court as per record.

7. The plaintiff had produced Ex. 15 the voters list of the house in question of the year 1975 wherein her name has been mentioned at Sr. No. 152 to be the resident of House No. 57 of Ward No. 4. Similarly in Ex. 16, voters list of the year 1971, it is mentioned that she had been the resident of house No. 57 at Sr. No. 148. In both the voters lists Sajid Ali, so-called vendor of the house has been shown to be resident of House No. 59.

8. Sale-deed dated 15.12.1976 has also been exhibited in original, where the house which is said to have been sold is mentioned as house No. 59 in ward No. 4. Map of the house had also been attached along with the sale deed.

9. From the pleadings it becomes clear that Sajid Ali was resident of House No. 59 and the claim for which the suit had been filed was House No. 57 later on changed to House No. 54. In para 37 of the judgment, it has been found that the plaintiff respondent was living in House No. 57.

10. Even though it is settled law that the interference in revision is to made in very exceptional circumstances and in extreme cases in the orders passed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act as has been held in the case of Bhojraj Krishnarao and another v. Sheshrao Diwakarrao & Ors., AIR 1949 Nagpur 126. Similarly it was held in Smt. Sobhabati v. Lakshmi Chand and others, AIR 1984 Orissa 171 that the High Court would not interfere in its discretionary revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 in the order passed u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act and the remedy lies in regular suit for declaration of title and possession. So was laid down in the case of M/s Industrial & Mining Equipment Co. Pvt. v. N.L. Kanodia and others, AIR 1986 Delhi 36 and in Padartha Amat and another v. Siba Sahu, AIR 1993 Orissa 92.

11. In Abdul Rahiman v. Nalakath Muhammed Haji, AIR 1997 Kerala 23, it was held that the remedy u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act provided summary cheap and useful remedy to one dispossessed of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law.

12. From the above said authoriti