JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J.

The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the judgement and decree dated 03.08.2019 passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner filed under section 6 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963 along with consequential relief of permanent injunction.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit under section 6 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963 for possession of House No.136, measuring 5 marla, situated at Govt. Colony Madh, Rayya, Teshil Baba Bakala, Distt. Amritsar inter alia pleading that he was the owner of the house in question in which one room and bathroom have been constructed and hand pump has also been installed and boundary wall constructed. It was further averred that the house in question has been allotted to schedule caste community and that the plaintiff-petitioner was residing in the house in question since the last more than 21 years and that the house in question was given to the plaintiff-petitioner by the Panchayat of Village Madh about 21 years ago. It was further averred that on 15.11.2015 all the defendant-respondents forcibly entered the house of the plaintiff-petitioner and abused, insulted and beat the plaintiff-petitioner, his wife and children and they were forcibly thrown out from the house in question along with their articles. On the basis of these averments, a decree for possession and permanent injunction was sought.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondent Nos.3 and 6 while the other defendant-respondents were proceeded against ex-parte. In the written statement filed by defendant-respondent Nos.3 and 6 objections regarding maintainability, estoppel, cause of action, etc. were raised. It was submitted that the house in question is situated at Village Madh (Colony) while the family of the plaintiff-petitioner was residing in main Village Madh and there is a distance of about one kilometer between the two villages i.e. Madh and Madh Colony. The suit property bears revenue record and is having Khasra No.101 (0-5) which was in the name of Dalip Singh s/o Puran Singh who was the father of defendant-respondent No.6 and after his death defendant-respondent No.6 being the only son of Dalip Singh was owner in possession of the suit property. It was further stated that earlier the plaintiff-petitioner had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction and had tried to grab the property of the defendant-respondent No.6 and in that suit the plaintiff-petitioner could not prove his ownership over the suit property and did not appear before the Court and the said suit was dismissed.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the Trial Court framed the following issues :

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of Possession of the suit property under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act ? OPP

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP

3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable ? OPP

4) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD

5) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit ? OPD

6) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands ? OPD

7) Relief.

5. On an appreciation of the evidence on the record the Trial Court vide judgement and decree dated 03.08.2019 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner. The Trial Court inter-alia held that "Jamabandi Ex.D1 shows that Dalip Singh father of defendant no.6 is ow