HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.R.P.No.5841 of 2002 ORDER: Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16-12-1996 passed in O.S.No.163 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsiff, Tandur, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendants. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 2. The brief facts of the case, which are necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition, are as follows: The plaintiff filed O.S.No.163 of 1987 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’) for recovery of possession of open land admeasuring 9 feet x 9 feet situated in Malgi No.4-1-52 situated at Chincholi Road, Tandur, and also for damages. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he is the owner and possessor of the said mulgi comprising of a shop malgi and small rear room with 9 feet width and 9 feet length. Defendant No.1 has admitted the possession of the plaintiff over the said house, but filed eviction case in R.C.No.10 of 1985 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tandur and the said eviction case ended in dismissal holding that the plaintiff is the owner of the said house property. Admittedly no appeal was filed against the order in R.C.No.10 of 1985. However, it is alleged that during the pendency of the said R.C. proceedings, the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit schedule property by the defendants, which resulted in filing the present suit. 3. During the pendency of the suit, Defendant No.1 died and therefore, defendant No.3 was brought on record as the legal representative of Defendant No.1 through the orders dated 27-10- 1993 passed in I.A.No.346 of 1993. However, on 06-06-1994, defendant No.3 was set ex parte. 4. Defendant No.2 filed written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint, and stated that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of two houses bearing No.4-1- 52, which is in possession of the plaintiff, and No.4-1-51 with open land which was sold to defendant No.2, and therefore, defendant No.2 is the owner of the house bearing No.4-1- 51, and thus, dispossession of the plaintiff from the said house does not arise and the suit is not maintainable, and sought for dismissal of the same. 5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were got marked. On behalf of the defendants, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were got marked. 6. The trial Court, after full-fledged trial, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff is entitled to get possession of the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.2 filed A.S.No.3 of 1997 before the Subordinate Judge at Vikarabad. During the pendency of the appeal, defendant No.2 died and Revision Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 were brought on record as his legal representatives. Subsequently, the defendants filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners-defendants draws the attention of this Court to Section 6 of the Act, which reads as follows: Section 6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property.— (1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit. (2) No suit under the section shall be brought— (a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or (b) against the Government. (3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor any review of any such order or decree be allowed. (4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof.” 8. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants mainly urged that the suit schedule property is nothing to do with the property in possession of the defendants since the decree relates to the house bearing No.4-1-52, whereas the defendants are in possession of the house bearing No.4-1-51, which are adjacent to each other at Chincholi Road, Tandur, and the defendants have not dismantled any structures as urged and they have no objection if no adverse order is passed against the house property bearing No.4-1- 51. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-first respondent, while placing reliance on Section 5 of the Act, emphasised that any person dispossessed from the immovable property without his consent may file a suit under Section 6 of the Act for recovery of possession thereon, and hence there is cause of action for the plaintiff in filing the suit. He further urged that the plaintiff’s contention that he is owner of the property bearing house No.4-1-52 was upheld in the R.C. proceedings filed against him in R.C.No.10 of 1985, and therefore, by virtue of the said orders in R.C., he was in possession of the property bearing house No.4-1-52 and filed suit for recovery of possession of the same. The learned counsel also fairly conceded that the plaintiff is not concerned with any other property much less the property bearing House No.4-1-51, which is said to be in possession of the defendants, and the plaintiff will confine his possession as per the decree in the impugned order. 10. Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order and decree of the trial Court is sustainable? POINT: 11. As seen from the record, the plaintiff acquired the property bearing House No.4-1-52 under the registered sale deed from defendant No.1 and pursuant to the said sale deed, he was in possession of the house from the date of sale deed. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the suit property from the date of its purchase and defendant No.1 is not the owner of the said property and his contention was all through was upheld by the Rent Controller in the R.C. filed by defendant No.1. 12. The trial Court upheld the contention of the plaintiff while granting decree directing the defendants to deliver possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, and it is for the plaintiff to take steps for execution of the decree. Admittedly the defendants are in possession of the property bearing House No.4-1-51. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the property bearing House No.4-1-52. Admittedly on the date of the filing the suit, the property bearing house No.4-1-52 was vacant site. When the property bearing House No.4-1-51 belongs to the defendants, it is for the plaintiff to identify the property bearing No.4-1-52. Therefore, it is left open to the plaintiff to identify the property bearing house No.4-1-52 and take steps for execution of the decree in O.S.No.163 of 1987 as per the schedule of the property mentioned therein. 13. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date: 03-12-2011 YCR