A claim for mesne profits cannot be made in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession.

Arun Bhansali, J.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.1, Sriganganagar ('the trial court'), whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ('the Act'), has been decreed and the petitioner has been directed to hand over possession of the disputed property to the respondent-plaintiff within a period of two months and from 01.08.2012 till handing over of actual possession, mesne profit @ Rs.2, 000/- per month along with interest @ 6% per annum has been decreed.

2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit, inter alia, with the averments that he had purchased the suit property i.e. House No.1-A-22, Shyamnagar, Purani Abadi, Sriganganagar admeasuring 15 feet X 64 feet from one Kanhaiyalal vide registered sale-deed dated 02.03.2012. It is claimed that the plaintiff was handed over possession of the suit property at the time of registration of the sale-deed. The petitioner by breaking the wall of the suit property, trespassed over the said property in April, 2012. the petitioner came to know about the same on 01.08.2012 and, consequently, filed the suit on 17.08.2012 seeking possession of the suit property.

3. The suit was resisted by the petitioner by filing written statement. It was, inter alia, claimed that he was in possession of the suit property for last over 30-35 years and the plea raised by the plaintiff regarding possession of the suit property were denied. The trial court framed six issued and after evidence was led by the parties, by the impugned judgment, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property, which was handed over to him at the time of execution of the sale-deed and that the defendant had failed to prove that he was in possession of the suit property for over 35 years and, consequently decreed the suit as noticed hereinbefore.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court committed error in decreed the suit of the plaintiff, inasmuch as the fact that the plaintiff came in possession of the suit property at the time of execution of the sale-deed on 02.03.2012 was not proved. It was submitted that large number of documents were produced by the petitioner to prove his possession of the suit property for a long time and as there was no dispossess on of plaintiff from the suit property, the proceedings under Section 6 of the Act were not maintainable and, consequently, the decree passed by the trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. Further submissions were made that the trial court has also awarded mesne profit, which relief as claimed by the plaintiff is alien to the proceedings under Section 6 of the Act and, therefore, the decree passed in this regard also deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned decree. It was submitted that the petitioner though claimed that he was in possession of the suit property for over 30-35 years, no documents were exhibited before the trial court to prove his possession and, therefore, the trial court was justified in rejecting the plea sought to be raised by the defendant. Further submissions were made that as the plaintiff has been deprived of the possession since 01.08.2012, the trial court was justified in granting the decree of mesne profit.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

8. Admittedly, the plot in land was allotted by the Urban Improvement Trust to Kanhaiyalal, who transferred the suit property to the petitioner by sale-deed dated 02.03.2012 and it is indicated in the sale-deed that possession of the property has been handed over to the plaintiff. The petitioner, while leading evidence failed to prove the said aspect as to at any point of time prior to the transfer of the property in question, he was in possessi