Judgment:
P.P. Naolekar, C.J.
1. The plaintiffs-respondents had filed a suit for possession of the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. According to the plaintiffs-respondents, their predecessor-in-interest, late Taramoni Das, being the occupancy tenant, was in exclusive possession of the suit land till his lifetime. After his death, the plaintiffs acquired the non-ejectable tenancy right of their predecessor-in-interest by right of inheritance. The plaintiffs No. 1, 2, 3 and 6 lived on the suit land as joint family and they were in cultivating possession of the same. It is alleged that on 25.4.1990, the plaintiffs-respondents have been dispossessed from the suit land by petitioners-defendants and, therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for possession on account of dispossession of the plaintiffs illegally and/or without any authority of law. The petitioners-defendants have entered appearance and filed their written statement contending, inter alia, that there was no cause of action to file the suit, the suit is not maintainable in the present form. The suit is barred by limitation. The suit is barred under Specific Relief Act. The suit was not properly valued. The Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit was bad for non-joinder of parties. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is not applicable in the suit and the Court could not pass any decree for demolition of the construction.
2. It is the case of the defendants that neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessor-in-interest was in possession of the suit property and, therefore, there is no question of dispossessing them by the defendants. For indicating the possession, the plaintiffs-respondents had filed Ext. 2, the Khatian No. 50 of Village Sheshri issued in the name of Taramoni Das in respect of land measuring 3 bighas 4 kathas appertaining to Old Dag No. 251, New Dag No. 251/492 and Ext. 3, wherein, Taramoni Das was shown as the occupancy tenant in respect of the suit land. The plaintiffs had also examined the witnesses to prove their possession and dispossession. The defendants also examined the witnesses to indicate that the plaintiffs were not in possession nor were dispossessed by the petitioners-defendants.
3. The trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence placed on record, has recorded the finding that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property and were dispossessed by the defendants in 25.4.1990. The trial Court's finding has been recorded after appreciation of the evidence placed on record by the plaintiffs and the defendants. The trial Court has also relied on Exts. 2 and 3 for the purposes of finding the possession of the plaintiffs on the suit land on the relevant date i.e. the date on which the dispossession was alleged. On other issues, the trial Court has recorded the finding in favour of the plaintiffs in regard to the cause of action, maintainability of the suit, limitation, court fee and jurisdiction. The trial Court has recorded the finding in favour of the plaintiffs. However, while recording the finding of possession on the basis of documentary evidence, i.e. Exts. 2 and 3, the trial Court has also recorded the finding in the following words :-
'Hence, I firmly hold that the plaintiffs acquired the non-ejectable tenancy right over the suit land and were in possession of the suit land till 25.4.1990 i.e., till the date of their dispossession otherwise than in due process of law.'
4. Heard Mr. B.K. Acharya, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners and Mr. C.K. Sarma Baruah, learned counsel for the respondents.
5. The bone of contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the jurisdiction of the Court is only to the extent of recording the finding in regard to possession of the party concerned and its dispossession. The Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate other questions relating to right, title and interest in the suit property and, thus, the finding recorded by the trial Court that the plaintiffs acquired non-ejectable tenancy right over the suit land is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the trail Court. Learned counsel for petitioners is correct in his submission so far as the question of record of finding by the trial Court in regard to right, title and interest of the plaintiffs in the suit land and, therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the plaintiffs acquired non-ejectable tenancy right over the suit land is set aside and shall have no effect. So far as the finding of the possession and dispossession is concerned, the trial Court is right in holding on appreciation of the evidence placed on record that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land on 25.4.1990 and were dispossessed by the defendants. The finding has been recorded by the trial Court on appreciation of the oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence laid before it and the learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any discrepancy and/or perversity in the finding recorded by the trial Court on the question of possession and dispossession.
6. That being the case, the revision is partly allowed and the finding recorded in respect of the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit land is set aside, but the decree for possession of the plaintiffs on the basis of their dispossession is maintained. However, there shall be no order as to costs.