M. Y. Eqbal, J.- This civil revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.2.99 passed by 1st Sub-Judge, Garhwa in Title Suit No. 8/ 97 whereby the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and has ordered for delivery of possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs-opposite parties.

2. The plaintiffs-opposite parties filed the aforementioned title suit for a decree for putting them in possession of the suit property by the process of court after evicting the defendants-petitioners therefrom. Plaintiffs' case, in short, is that the suit land measuring 10 1/2 decimals comprised of plot no. 17 within Khata No. 31 of village, Jhalua alongwith structures standing thereon was purchased by them from Md. Issa Sheikh and Md. Israil Sheikh by virtue of two registered sale deeds dated 24.10.91 and 6.4.96 and thereafter they came in possession of the same. The plaintiffs, after purchase, got their names mutated after proper verification and compliance of all formalities vide Mutation Case No. 68/1996-97 and are paying rent to the State of Bihar. Plaintiffs' further case is that they constructed boundary wall with pucca bricks and fixed a gate for entry. They also constructed two rooms which were tiled roof with wooden doors fitted with bricks. It is alleged that they have been residing in the suit property with their family members. It is further alleged that the defendants, being influenced by some local politics and in collusion with the district administration, dispossessed" the plaintiffs from the suit land on 18.9.96 by forming unlawful assembly without the consent of the plaintiffs.

3. The defendants-petitioners contested the suit by filing written statement stating, inter alia, that they do not have any knowledge of the sale deeds dated 24.10.91 and 6.4.96 by which the plaintiffs alleged to have purchased the suit land. They have also denied the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Defendants' further case is that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit property. On the contrary, they had constructed four rooms, two of which are roofed and two are without any roof and they are residing therein alongwith their family members. It is alleged that on 18.9.96 the plaintiffs entered into the house of the defendants with the help of their vendors having formed an unlawful assembly. It is alleged that the plaintiffs assaulted them, committed rape and kidnapped the family members of the defendants. The police officer got information by the neighbors and then they were apprehended in the way.

4. The trial court framed the following issues for consideration:

I. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable?

II. Whether the plaintiffs have valid cause of action for the suit?

111. Whether the plaintiffs came in possession over the suit land and constructed house thereon after purchasing the same through valid sale deeds dated 24.10.91 and 6.4.96?

IV. Whether the possession of plaintiffs over the house situated over the suit land be restored by evicting the defendants therefrom?

V. Whether the dispossession of plaintiffs by the defendants from the house situated over the suit land is legal and valid?

VI. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief as claimed for?

VII. To what relief or reliefs, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?

5. Issue nos. 3 to 7 were taken up together and after considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial court came to the conclusion that on the relevant date the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property and they were dispossessed by the defendants without their consent. On the basis of the said findings the trial court decreed the suit.

6. Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants-petitioners assailed the impugned judgment as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned couns