A summary remedy under Section 192 of the Indian Succession Act is only available in special cases where the applicant would be materially prejudiced if left to the ordinary remedy of a suit. The applicant must also demonstrate that the application is made in good faith.

( 1 ) THESE are two civil revisions filed under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The property in dispute initially belonged to one Ramlali Devi. She died on 21st March; 1979. In May, 1979 Sri Dharam Sukh Tewari filed an application under S. 192 of the Indian Succession Act before the District Judge, Allahabad for issue of a direction that the possession of the properties belonging to Ramlali Devi be delivered to Dharam Sukh Tewari. This application was filed against Sri Ramapati Tewari and Sri Girja Prasad Tewari. Sri. Ramapati Tewari and Sri Girja Prasad Tewari are the sons of Paramsukh Tewari who was the real brother of the husband of Ramlali Devi. Dharamsukh Tewari is the real brother of Tribhuwan Nath, the husband of Ramlali Devi. In essence the dispute is between the uncle Dharamsukh Tewari and his nephews Girja Prasad Tewari and Ramapati Tewari in respect of the property of late Smt. Ramlali Devi. This application under S. 192 of the Succession Act was allowed by the District Judge by judgment dated 22nd May, 1982. Sri Ramapati Tewari filed Civil Revision No. 368 of 1982 challenging the said judgment. Sri Girja Prasad Tewari filed Civil Revision No. 400 of 1982 against the same judgment. Since both these revisions involved common question of fact and law and, as such, they are being decided by a common judgment.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists in both the revisions and the learned counsel for the opposite party Dharam Sukh Tewari.

( 3 ) IN the application, which was moved under S. 192 of the Indian Succession Act, it has been categorically admitted by the opposite party that Ramapati Tewari and Girja Prasad Tewari had been residing in the property in dispute much prior to the death of Smt. Ramlali Devi, when admittedly, the revisionists were in possession of the property for quite a long time, a heavy duty was cast upon the opposite party, who has moved the application under S. 192 of the Succession Act, to establish before the Court as to under what circumstance a summary remedy was being availed of in the case in question. In normal circumstances, if a person is in possession of the property, he cannot be evicted by means of adopting a summary remedy, as rights flow by virtue of long possession. It is, consequently, incumbent upon the applicant under S. 192 of the Succession Act to establish categorically and by positive evidence that he is availing of the summary remedy for special reasons alleged by him.

( 4 ) SECTION 193 of the Indian Succession Act is quoted below :-"193. The District Judge, to whom such application is made shall, in the first place, examine the applicant on oath, and may make such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary as to whether there is a sufficient ground for believing that the party in possession or taking forcible means for seizing possession has no lawful title, and that the applicant, or the person on whose behalf he applies, is really entitled and is likely to be materially prejudiced if left to the ordinary remedy of a suit, and that the application is made bona fide. "

( 5 ) UNDER the above S. 193, it is clear that the District Judge, has to make an enquiry. Particularly on the question as to whether the applicant is really entitled and is likely to be materially prejudiced if left to the ordinary remedy of a suit and that the application is made bona fide. The finding in regard to the material prejudice as well as bona fides are conditions precedent for the maintenance of an application under S. 192 of the Indian Succession Act.

( 6 ) ON a reading of Part VII of the Succession Act, which includes S. 192, also, it is apparent that summary remedy was provided by the Legislature only in special cases where in case a person is left to the ordinary remedy of a suit, he would be materially prejudiced. This summary remedy was not contemplated to be availed of in cases where a person is in possession and there is a dispute of title