Sita vs Rakhi And Ors

By way of this revision petition, the petitioner Smt.Sita assails the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan whereby, the suit preferred under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was decreed in favour of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 20.5.2019.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an illegality has been committed by the Court below in allowing the plaintiff's suit under Section 6 as for the purpose of decreeing a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, it was incumbent upon the Court to have reached to a finding that there was a settled possession of the plaintiff of which she was dispossessed. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has purchased the plot from one Dharmendra Beniwal for which the amount was paid to him and possession of the plot no.74 was handed over to her. There is no case of dispossession of the plaintiff. It is also submitted that another plot was sold to one Ms.Anju Beniwal wherein she was also given possession.

I have considered the submissions.

On behalf of the plaintiff, PW1 Krishna Kumar, who is her power of attorney, stated in the Court that the plots no.73 & 74 situated at Vivekanand Nagar, Pal Road, Near Maheshwari Marbles were in the name of Dharmendra Beniwal, the patta whereof was issued in his name by Additional Collector Agriculture Land Conversion, Jodhpur on 13.6.1990. Dharmendra Beniwal gave a general power of attorney to one Dinesh Tiwari, who as his power of attorney sold plots no.73 & 74 to one Gautam Chand Lalwani on 26.4.1994 by registered sale deed and handed over possession to him. Gautam Chand Lalwani divided plots no.73-74 into two plots ; one plot admeasuring 30 feet x 50 feet marked as 73-74-A and sold it by registered sale deed to the plaintiff on 12.2.1999 and handed over possession to her and the remaining plot admeasuring 20 feet x 50 feet marked as 73-74-B was sold to one Jagdish Singh on 12.2.1999 and possession thereof was handed over to him. The plaintiff thereafter got her plot no.73-74-A constructed and built an underground, ground floor with one room, kitchen, toilet & bathroom. The adjacent plot no.73-74-B was purchased by the plaintiff from Jagdish Singh later on by registered sale deed executed in her favour by Jagdish Singh on 19.3.2007 and she constructed a 2½ feet wall around the said plot and then also make certain additional constructions on the said plot. However, on 5.10.2008, she was dispossessed by several persons who entered into the house in the night by breaking open the locks. She also lodged an FIR in this regard. Evidence was produced by the plaintiff including that of one Gautam Chand Lalwani who had sold the plot to her and also of other persons including the persons who had been involved in the sale deed including a lawyer. Evidence was also produced of her possession by producing the evidence of the person who had raised construction on the plot.

On behalf of the petitioner, the seller Dharmendra Beniwal, who is said to be the original owner of the plot was produced in evidence and the documents including sale deed executed by him in favour of the petitioner were also produced.

After examining the evidence which has come on record and discussing each and every deposition of the witnesses, the Court below has reached to the conclusion that the plaintiff was having possession on the plot and she was forcefully and wrongfully dispossessed and the Court has also noticed that charge-sheet was filed under Section 448 IPC on the FIR lodged by the plaintiff. The Court also noticed that the contention with regard to selling of another plot to one Dr.Anju Beniwal was also found to be without basis as the dimensions of the plot of Anju Beniwal were stated to be 25 feet by 50 feet which is different from the dimensions of plot no.73-74-B and 73-74-A and Dharmendra Beniwal could not explain this aspect before the Court. Dharmendra Beniwal has also deposed before the Court that he has no information relating to possession of the plot in between 2000 to 15.4.2008. This Court also notices that while the date on which the plaintiff is said to be dispossessed is 5.10.2008 whereas the petitioner has claimed to be put into possession by Dharmendra Beniwal on 15.4.2008, which has not been found to be correct.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Rame Gowda (Dead) by LRs. vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by LRs. and another - (2004) 1 SCC 769 to contend that the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 6 would give a finding regarding settled possession which is a sine qua non for exercising the powers under Section 6.

As noticed above, this Court is satisfied that the plaintiff was having a settled possession after having purchased the plot in question and had also constructed house as well as wall for which necessary documents as well as proof has been produced. In the opinion of this Court, settled possession is thus clearly made out which means that the possession is effective, undisturbed and is in knowledge of the others. The settled possession is also found to be proved from the fact that Dharmendra Beniwal in his deposition clearly admits of not having possession from 2000 to 2008. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is found to be without any merit.

Section 115 CPC empowers this Court to examine orders passed by the Court below if it appears to have exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested or while exercising the jurisdiction, the Court had acted illegally. The scope is thus limited. As noticed above, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that the subordinate Court has in any manner acted illegally or it did not have any jurisdiction to exercise its powers as exercised by it.

Taking into consideration that a finding of fact has been arrived at which is not to be substituted by this Court in revisional jurisdiction and taking into consideration that there is no perversity found in interpreting the evidence which has come on record, no case for interference is made out.

The revision petition is found to be without merit and is hereby dismissed.

All pending applications also stand disposed.