IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the limitations of revisional jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and the protection of symbolic or constructive possession.

JUDGMENT :

1. Respondent no.1 Nandlal brought Civil Original Suit No.224/2009 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for recovery of possession against the petitioners and the proforma respondents. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 09.02.2021. Since Sub-Section (3) of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 prohibits maintainability of appeal or review against any order/ decree passed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 this revision petition under Section 115 of CPC has been filed.

2. Case and claim of plaintiff-respondent was/is that Simbhulal and his two sons Madan Lal & Om Prakash Vyas had jointly acquired Patta No.259 in respect of Plot No.990 in the year 1946-1947. Madan Lal was father of respondent no.1 Nandlal Vyas. The petitioners herein Om Prakash Vyas is another son of Simbhulal and petitioner no.2 is son of Om Prakash Vyas. The plaintiff asserted that after the death of Simbhulal Ji, though, Plot No.990 and the house standing thereon was never partitioned by metes and bounds but the co-sharers were conveniently using different portions of the suit property. The portion of Plot No.990 shown within “ABCD” was occupied by plaintiff Nandlal Vyas and his two real brothers i.e. Chandra Prakash and Rajkumar. The portion “CDEF” was also in possession of the plaintiff and the defendants were in possession of the rest portion shown in the map with plaint including a shop. Plaintiff asserted that plaintiff and his brothers had taken electric connection in the name of Madan Lal Vyas, father of the plaintiff, 20 years back and was paying electric charges and was in possession of receipts of payment of electric charges. For sometime, the said portion was in occupation of tenants and they were paying rent to the plaintiff and were getting receipts. In the month of October, 2008 tenant Krishna Vyas (examined as plaintiff witness) vacated the house for personal use of the plaintiff and the plaintiff got the repairing work done. However, on 19.03.2009 the defendants forcefully dispossessed the plaintiff, hence, the plaintiff was compelled to lodge FIR No.109/2009 on 20.03.2009 with Pratap Nagar police station and on 08.7.2009 the present Civil Suit No.224/2009 was filed. The plaintiff simultaneously filed partition suit No.228/2009 for partition of Plot No.990, which is pending separately.

3. The respondents controverted claim of plaintiff by filing written statement and stated that in fact Plot No.990 was purchased by Simbhulal from his own earnings and it was self-acquired property of Simbhulal Ji. At the time of purchase son of Simbhulal Ji i.e. Madan Lal Ji was of 12 years and petitioner Om Prakash Vyas was of 06 years, hence, they had no source of income to purchase the property. Since the suit plot was the exclusive property of Simbhulal, Simbhulal Ji executed a registered Will in favour of his wife Dev Kaur (defendant no.6) in the year 1962 and thereafter Dev Kaur is the real owner of the property. In fact Dev Kaur allowed, for some time, to occupy that portion by real brothers of plaintiff Chandra Prakash and Rajkumar, as such, their possession was permissive possession. Plaintiff managed repairing work for which Dev Kaur had paid the repairing charges.

4. The learned trial Judge relied upon testimony of the plaintiff including a tenant of plaintiff that the plaintiff was in possession of portion “ABCD” and accordingly decreed the suit for recovery of possession. The learned trial Judge elaborately considered in para 5 & 6 of the judgment oral and documentary evidences produced by the plaintiff including copy of patta, rent receipts, receipts of payment charges of water and energy. The learned trial Judge noticed that besides oral statement of the defendant/ petitioners, no other evidence was there to support their claim, rather admission of petitioner no.1 regarding claim of the respondent was also noticed.

5. In Aarti Vs. Aruna Gautam & Ors., reported in 2015(1) Civil Court Cases 212 (S