The High Court should not interfere in its discretionary revisional jurisdiction with a decision given under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, as the parties have an elective remedy by way of a suit for declaration of title and possession.

R. C. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision against the decision of the learned Munsif, Bargarh, dismissing the plain-tiff's suit under Section 6, Specific Relief Act, for recovery of possession.

( 2 ) THE property in dispute is 8 decimals in extent located in an important locality in Barpali. The plaintiff's case is that the land which was full of ditches was levelled by her and small kucha hutments were constructed thereon. One of the hutments was occupied by her husband and herself and the rest were let out to others. This continued for three years. When her husband got a job, she shifted to a house in the basti. Nevertheless the property remained in their possession and enjoyment. They had put fence around the plot and used to repair the same year after year until 1978 when defendant 1 acting at the behest of the other defendants unauthorisedly came upon the land and started digging foundation and erecting structures. This furnished the cause of action for the suit.

( 3 ) THE plea of the contesting defendants is that the suit property belonged to the Gram-panchayat which stood recorded as the tenant in the Record-of-Fights. After the constitution of the Notified Area Council for Barpali, the latter is the owner. The husband of the plaintiff who was an Amin got the name of his wife recorded- in the remarks column of the Record-of-Rights though she was never in possession. During the year 1975-76, the ditches were covered up with earth and a road was constructed over it for the market complex. Foundation stone for the market complex was laid in 1976 over a portion of the land. The parties went to trial and the learned Munsif disbelieved the story of the plaintiff that she was in possession until 1978 when she was dispossessed and accordingly dismissed the suit.

( 4 ) MR. R. N. Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has sought to assail the finding of the learned Munsif by urging that the evidence on record clearly established the possession of the plaintiff within six months next before the institution of the suit and she was dispossessed otherwise than in due process of law. Mr. Murthy, the learned counsel for opposite parties 3 to 5, has submitted, that if is not open to this Court in its revisional jurisdiction to reassess the evidence, and consider the correctness of the findings recorded by the learned Munsif.

( 5 ) THE object behind Section 6, Specific Relief Act, is to discourage persons taking law into their own hands, and is based and founded on public policy. It is a summary remedy available to the person in possession of immoveable property when he is dispossessed otherwise than in due process of law. The suit is not maintainable against the Government and after the expiry of the period of six months from the date of dispossession. Section 6 does not operate as a bar to the institution of a suit for recovery of possession on the basis of title.

( 6 ) IN this case, the plaintiff examined five witnesses including herself. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the defendants. The Record-of-Rights and the village map were exhibited. On an appreciation of the evidence, the learned Munsif recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove her possession over the suit land. On going through the judgment I find that the learned Munsif has considered the evidence of each of the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiffs, assessed its worth and after weighing the probabilities, negatived the plaintiff's version. It cannot be said on a perusal of the evidence that the finding recorded is perverse one which could not have been reasonably reached. May be, after shifting from Bargarh, the plaintiff's husband who was a wage earner occupied a piece of vacant land and raised a kucha structure and occupied the same. But admittedly, he moved away from Barpali within three years when he got an employment and shifted from place to place. The hutments which were originally there crumbled and as P.