JUDGMENT :

D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The core question that fairs for determination this case is whether a suit fifed u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short the Act') altering illegal dispossession of the plaintiffs from the disputed property is maintainable against a person who has valid title to it,

2. This revision petrtion is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-10-1987/7-T.1-1987 of the Subordinate Judge, Rourkefa in T. S. No. 41 of 1982 decreeing the suit. The factual backdrop of the case leading to the present proceeding may be shortly stated thus : The opposite parties 1 and 2, Abhijit Biswas and Samarjit Biswas filed the suit under Sec 6 of the Act against the petitioners Nanda Kumar Prasad and Bijy Kumar Prasad and opposite party No. 3 Ranjit Biswas brother of opposite parties land 2 seeking recovery of possession of the suit land by evicting the petitioners from it. The suit land is described in Schedule-A to the plaint as Rayatri land bearing Major Settlement Plot No. 760 measuring an area of A3. 035 decimals (Thirty-five decimals in Khata No. 428 (Kha) of Rourkela Town,. Tahasil Pinposh, District Sundargarh The case of the plaintiffs was that they negotiated with Maguni Chandra Dwivedy owner of the suit: Sand for purchase of AO. 02 decimals of land out of Sabik plot No. 461 for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/-; the owner agreed to sell the land, received the consideration amount, executed a document on 15-4-1988 handed over possession to the plaintiffs and defendant No and promised :to execute a formal sale deed later. While possessing the said two decimal, of land the plaintiffs round another piece of vacant Sand of the same owner laying to the adjacent north of the land in their possession. On their request the owner agreed to-sell - that land also -to them and allowed them to possess it. Thereafter, the, plaintiffs raised a -boundary wall enclosing the entire area and possessed it by constructing a Kutcha house to store coal, firewood etc. for their hotel. They paid rent for the land and it was recorded in their names in the settlement parcha.

While they were in possession of the land, on 17-7-1982 the defendants 1 and 2 forcibly dispossessed them, broke open the main gate in the western side and destroyed the boundary wall on the eastern side of the land and removed the structure standing on it. On 23-7-1982 they forcibly constructed a pucca boundary wall on the eastern side of the suit land. Thereafter, the defendants made preparations for construction of a building without any permission from the Notified Area Council or the Rourkela Regional Improvement Trust and without any right to or interest over the suit land. In these circumstances the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the reliefs noticed dearlier.

3. The defendants I and 2 who contested the suit filed written statement denying the claims of the plaintiffs. According to the defendants Maguni Chandra Dwibedi sold the suit land to Laxmidevi Somani by.a registered sale deed dated 4-11-1968 and put her in possession of the land; the Slid Laxmidevi Somani possessed the land by constructing a boundary wall and hut, she sold the suit land with its structure to M/s. Emeralled Industrial Corporation, Calcutta under a registered sale deed on 26-7-1972 and put the purchaser in possession. Though M/s. Emeralled Industrial Corporation had applied to the Rourkela Regional Improvement Trust for sanction of a building plan and also to the Executive Officer, N. A C. (C. T.), Rourkela, but the latter sold the land with structure to Smt. Manorama Devi and Santosh Kumar Gupta by a registered sale deed executed on 8-6-1982 and delivered possession of the properties to them. Since then the defendants are in possession of the suit land in their own right, title and interest. They have effected repairs to the existing structures thereon. The defendants 1 and 2 denied the claim of the plaintiffs that they have purchased any portion of the suit land or had entered