The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish possession and dispossession within six months under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.

1. Vide this civil revision petition, petitioner-plaintiff Ram Kumar challenges judgment and decree dated 23.3.2004 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal.

2. Claim of the petitioner-plaintiff before the lower court was that he was incepted as a tenant under Aggarwal Dharamshala, Pundri. Subhash Chand, respondent No. 1 herein and defendant No. 1 in the suit in last week of June, 1994 had joined hands with him for business of selling Phirni sweets. Sometime later, said respondent-defendant colluding with the office bearers of Pundri Tirath Sabha got a rent note dated 28.6.1994 executed in his favour and filed a suit for injunction against the petitioner-plaintiff on 1.7.1994 wherein he had claimed himself to be in exclusive possession of the suit property and was successful in obtaining forcible possession from the plaintiff. Restoration of possession of the suit property was sought.

3. Claim of the respondents, defendants in the suit controverting the stand of the petitioner-plaintiff therein, however, was that neither the Aggarwal Dharamshala was the owner of the suit property nor the petitioner-plaintiff was in possession as a tenant. It was elaborated that, in fact, the petitioner-plaintiff had never been in occupation of the suit property and right from the very start, the respondent No. 1 was tenant in the suit property under respondent No. 2 herein on the basis of rent note dated 28.6.1994. In short, version of the petitioner-plaintiff of forcible dispossession from the suit property at the hands of respondents No. 1 and 2 was denied. The petitioner-plaintiff, however, had reiterated his version in the replication furnished by him.

4. Rival claims of the parties were sought to be adjudicated by the lower court on the following issues, which were framed by it on 9.10.2001:

1. Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property since June 1994, as alleged? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in favour of the plaintiff, whether he has been dispossessed forcibly and without adopting due process of law within a period of six months before filing of the present suit, by the defendants? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee? OPD

6. Whether the suit is not within the period of limitation? OPD

7. Relief.

5. The parties had led oral as well as documentary evidence and after appreciating the same, the lower court had come to a firm finding that the plaintiff, petitioner herein was not in possession of the suit property as claimed by him. It was, rather, held that respondent No. 1 was in possession. Sequelly, deciding issues No. 1, 2, 4 and 6 against the petitioner-plaintiff, his suit was dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

6. Since there is no appeal provided against adjudication of civil suit made under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act), the petitioner-plaintiff has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by way of this civil revision petition.

7. It is claimed that established possession of the petitioner-plaintiff as also his forcible dispossession thereafter, is fully proved on record but even then, the trial court wrongly returned findings against him. It is claimed that though he was not required to prove as to in which capacity, he was in possession but even then there is enough evidence to substantiate his claim that he was in possession as a tenant. It is claimed that there is overwhelming evidence in favour of the petitioner especially in the statement of Surender Pal (PW1) that he was in possession as a tenant. Reversal of the impugned judgment and decree has been sought.

8. Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the petitioner while going through the paper book.

9. At the outset, Section

Click Here to Read the rest of this document