The judgment established the principle that under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, a person in possession of immovable property can recover possession if unlawfully dispossessed, by proving ownership and prompt action.

The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.2 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvarur, is the revision petitioner before this Court, challenging the order of dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.2 of 2009 on 06.06.2011, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that he owns a property in S.No.116/1C measuring 5 ares in Kunniyur Village in Tiruvarur District and having his house bearing Door No.361 and shop building bearing door No.360. The patta was issued in the year 1991 and the same was stand in the name of the plaintiff. The name of the plaintiff has also shown in the Chitta and Adangal in respect of the suit schedule of property.

3. The plaintiff further states that he was running a petty shop in the suit property bearing Door N.360 and local Panchayat has also assessed the property and issued a tax receipts in the name of the plaintiff. The defendants are the residents of nearby village, who have purchased some extent of land in S.No.116/4. But, they have no right over the suit property measuring to an extent of 5 ares. When the attempt was made by the first defendant directing the plaintiff to vacate the suit schedule of property, at that time, the plaintiff got doubt about the acts of the defendants and he filed caveat petition before the Court below.

4. The plaintiff has also come forward by saying that when the plaintiff making a search in the Sub-Registrar Office, Tiruvarur, to know in particulars of the documents in respect of purchase made by the second defendant and the plaintiff came to know that the second defendant has purchased the property to an extent of 10 cents in S.No.116/4 with a thatched building from one Jeyanthi through a registered sale deed dated 30.06.2008. There was no building in S.No.116/4 and it was also not handed over to the second defendant according to the said sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff further states that the defendants cannot lay hands over the shop building more particularly any extent in the suit property lawfully.

5. In reply to the caveat filed by the plaintiff, the second defendant s vendor issued legal notice to the plaintiff. But, even then in the said notice, there was no whisper about the transfer of property by the said Jeyanthi to the second defendant as per law. The plaintiff further states that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule of property.

6. The plaintiff states that on the wrong guidance, the property was purchased by the second defendant along with their community people have illegally trespassed into the suit property on 21.02.2008 and remained there unlawfully. The police authorities also did not come to the rescue of the plaintiff as the defendants are highly influenced people. The defendants have dispossessed the suit property from the plaintiff without his consent unlawfully. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the above suit for recovery of possession as per Section 6 of Specific Relief Act.

7. The second defendant on summon from the Court engaged his counsel and filed his written statement, which was adopted by the first defendant. The second defendant has denied all the averments as contend in the plaint.

8. The case of the second defendant is that originally one Kandasamy on 04.05.1990 had transferred the property to an extent of 0.10 cents out of the total extent of 41 cents in R.S.No.16 inclusive of the suit property in favour of his son one Mr. Yoganathan, the younger brother of the plaintiff through a registered settlement deed on 08.10.2007 the said Yoganathan sold the same to one S.Jeyanthi, who in turn sold the said property to the second defendant through registered sale deed dated 30.06.2008. But, the second defendant further states that in the year 1991, the said Kandasamy fraudulently obtained patta in his name under the UDR scheme taking advantage of the absence of his son Yoganathan and thereafter the said Kandasamy had settled an extent of 0.04 cents in favour of the pl