IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that suits for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Act of 1963 must be filed within six months of dispossession, and the title of the parties is immaterial in such suits.

ORDER :

1. The present revision petitions have been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Phalodi, District Jodhpur in Civil Regular Suit No.95/1999 and Civil Regular Suit No.94/1999 respectively whereby the suits as preferred by the plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1963') for recovery of possession and permanent injunction have been dismissed. The facts of both the revisions being identical, both are decided by this common order.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.09.1999, plaintiff Dev Kishan preferred suit under Section 6 of the Act of 1963 with the submission that the property in question was purchased by Heeralal, father of the plaintiff from Vijayraj vide registered sale deed dated 18.09.1972 who inter alia purchased the same from Shri Gopal vide sale deed dated 14.11.1943. Since the date of the said purchase, Heeralal and subsequently, the legal representatives of Heeralal including the plaintiff were in possession of the property in question.

3. The dispute subsequently arose between Shri Gopal and Heeralal and a suit was preferred in the year 1972 by Heeralal for injunction against Shri Gopal which was decreed in favour of legal representatives of Heeralal on 02.08.1983. However, an appeal was preferred by Shri Gopal against the said decree and in the said appeal, a new issue being issue No.12 was framed by the first Appellate Court and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for decision on the said issue. While remanding the matter, the first Appellate Court directed the Trial Court to decide the said issue within a period of nine months and then forward the record along with the decision on the said issue to the first Appellate Court.

4. During the pendency of the said proceedings, Shri Gopal sold out the land in question to the present defendants Kamla Devi and Rekha Devi vide sale deeds dated 21.08.1996 and 18.09.1996 respectively. When these purchasers namely, Kamla Devi and Rekha Devi allegedly encroached upon the land in question in the year 1999, the present suits for recovery of possession and permanent injunction was preferred against them.

5. Although, prayer for declaration of the sale deeds dated 21.08.1996 and 18.09.1996 in favour of Kamla Devi and Rekha Devi respectively, to be null and void was also made in the suit and issue No.1 qua the same was also framed, however, while deciding issue No.1, the learned Trial Court held the same to be beyond the scope of Section 6 of the Act of 1963 and hence, struck off the same.

6. While deciding issue Nos.2 and 7 jointly, the learned Trial Court reached to a finding that the present suit was not filed by the plaintiff within a period of six months of his alleged dispossession and hence, decided them against him. The Trial Court reached to a specific finding that the defendants were in possession of the property ever since the date of sale deeds executed in their favour that is since year 1996, and hence, it is not proved that the plaintiff was dispossessed just six months before the filing of the suit. As issue Nos.2 and 7 were decided against the plaintiff, issue No.3 being a consequential one, was also decided against him.

So far as the other issues are concerned, they were decided against defendant No.1 but this Court is not required to delve into the same as no appeal/revision has been preferred by defendant no.1 against the same.

Further, no challenge in the present revision petitions has been laid against the decision on Issue No.1 whereby it was struck off. Hence, this Court is not required to delve into the same too.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. The issue before this Court is – Whether the finding of the learned Trial Court that defendant no.1 was in possession of the suit property since the date of purchase and the plaintiff was not dispossessed prior to a period of six months of the f