The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff must prove his possession and dispossession within a period of six months, and the inquiry is limited to possession and dispossession, ignoring the question of title.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner-plaintiff has preferred this revision petition within the scope of Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2010 in Civil Suit No.79/2008 passed by Additional District judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jhunjhunu whereby and whereunder his civil suit for possession filed invoking the scope of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as, ’the Act’) has been dismissed.

2. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the impugned judgment and record.

3. Briefly stated facts of case are that plaintiff instituted present civil suit stating therein that a piece of land was purchased through registered sale deed dated 09.11.1971 from one Abdul Jabbar and constructed shop thereupon. It was pleaded by plaintiff that he carried out his business of scrapper in shop No.56 from 1971 to 1982 and thereafter shifted his business in another shop No.50, situated in the same market, however shop No.56 remained in continuous possession of plaintiff. Plaintiff has pleaded that on 09.04.2008, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have entered into possession of the shop No.56 and dispossessed the plaintiff unauthorizedly. Hence the present suit was instituted on 26.07.2008 by plaintiff for restoration of his possession on shop No.56 and for that purpose plaintiff has invoked the jurisdiction of Court under Section 6 of the Act.

4. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have submitted joint written statement and contested the suit filed by plaintiff, contenting that in fact through sale deed dated 09.11.1971, open piece of land was purchased by several persons to develop a kabadi market in the name of ’Jai Bharat Kabadi Market, Jhunjhunu’. Defendants contended that in the sale deed dated 09.11.1971, name of plaintiff is not included among purchasers and after development of kabadi market, shop No.50 was allotted to plaintiff and shop No.56 was allotted to defendant No.2-Mohammad Ismile.

Later on defendant No.2-Mohammad Ismile sold shop No.56 to Abdul Kayum and Abdul Raoof sons of Gulam Kadir against sale consideration of Rs.7,31,000/- and defendant No.1 has purchased the suit shop i.e. shop No.56 from Abdul Kayum and Abdul Raoof through agreement (Exhibit-A8). Defendants contended that neither shop No.56 was ever allotted to plaintiff nor this shop ever remained in possession of plaintiff and earlier since shop was allotted to Mohammad Ismile, he was in possession. Mohammad Ismile transferred the possession of shop in question to Abdul Kayum and Abdul Raoof and from whom, defendant No.1 obtained the possession. Defendants contended that plaintiff has wrongly make out a case of alleging his dispossession on 09.04.2008 and has instituted the present civil suit under Section 6 of the Act narrating incorrect facts. Thus, the civil suit be dismissed with costs.

5. It appears that since plaintiff in his plaint itself pleaded his title and possession over the shop No.56 on the basis of sale deed dated 09.11.1971, therefore, in order to examine the possession of plaintiff, issue Nos.1 and 2 were framed. Issue No.8 was also framed on contention of defendants that plaintiff never remained in possession of suit shop and thus not entitled for restoration of possession within the scope of Section 6 of the Act.

6. Both parties adduced their oral and documentary evidence. Plaintiff produced himself as PW-1 and produced Mohammad Ishaq as PW-2 who happens to be the brother of defendant No.2-Mohammad Ismile. Apart from producing the registered sale deed dated 09.11.1971 of lands, documents Exhibit 4 to 23 were exhibited by plaintiff to show his previous possession over the shop No.56, prior to his dispossession on 09.04.2008.

In counter, defendants produced DW-1 and DW-2 as also submitted documents to prove the allotment of shop No.56 to defendant No.2- Mohammad Ismile and other documents through which the possession was transferred to defendant No.1.

7. The trial court, after appreciation of evidence produced by both parties, h