Possession is the sole issue in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, and an agreement to sell does not confer ownership or affect the right to recover possession.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J.

The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 18.05.2016 passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents filed under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-respondents approached the Court averring in the plaint that ancestor of the plaintiff-respondents namely, Sunder Lal son of Sita Ram, filed a suit for possession by way of partition titled as 'Sunder Lal v. Bhagwati Prasad Etc.' which was partly decreed on 08.06.1999. Aggrieved by the same Sunder Lal preferred an appeal which was allowed and he was declared as owner to the extent of ½ share in the property. Thereafter, Sunder Lal filed an application under Order XX Rule 18(2) CPC for final partition of the properties wherein Mr. N.K. Joon, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner for suggesting the mode of partition qua the properties. The Local Commissioner submitted a detailed report along with a site plan suggesting the mode of partition of the property. The application for final partition was accordingly decreed on 30.11.2007 by the Court concerned. Sunder Lal expired and his LRs filed an execution petition in the year 2008 for taking possession of the property allotted to them in final partition by the Court. The possession of the suit property was handed over to the plaintiff-respondents on 08.01.2012 and accordingly the counsel representing the plaintiff-respondents in the said execution petition withdrew the execution being fully satisfied. It is further the case that the defendant-petitioner herein forcibly and illegally dispossessed the plaintiff-respondents from the suit property on 31.10.2013 and that he had no concern whatsoever with the suit property in any manner. Upon notice the defendants herein filed their joint written statement raising the preliminary objections of maintainability, limitation, estoppel, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits it was contended that the defendant Nos.1 to 11 and defendant No.12 in the suit filed for possession by way of partition were declared owners to the extent of 1/4th share each in the suit property. Even in the appeal the shares of defendant Nos.1 to 12 were not disturbed by the First Appellate Court. The filing of the application for passing of the final decree and appointment of the Local Commissioner was specifically denied by the defendants. It was further contended that the vendors namely, Bhagwati Parsad, Devaki Nandan, Rajbir and Pardeep, transferred their ½ share in favour of the defendants vide agreement to sell dated 17.08.2001 and actual physical possession of the suit property was also handed over to them at the time of the agreement to sell and since the purchase of the property they have been in possession. On the basis of the pleadings the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property mentioned in para no. 4 of the plaint on 08.01.2012 ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs have been dispossessed by the defendants forcibly and illegally on 31.10.2013 from the suit property ? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of possession by directing the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property shown by letters ABCD ? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties ? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiffs have not come with clean hands before the Court ? OPD

8. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD

9. Relief

3. The Trial Court decreed the suit vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.05.2016. Hence, the present revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner would contend