1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 82/2010 (Abdul Raseed Ibrahim Botha vs. Harun Ibrahim Botha (Bhami)) ...................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ...................................................................................................................................................................... Mr.Anil Kumar, counsel for the applicant Mr.S.C.Bhalerao, counsel for respondent ... CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 27th SEPTEMBER, 2010. This revision application challenges the judgment and decree dated 23rd July, 2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal, in Special Civil Suit No. 30/2004. It was a suit for possession and damages under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act and the defendant is directed to deliver the possession of the suit shop to the plaintiff along with the electric meter. Hence, the defendant has preferred this revision. 2] The respondent/plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 30/2004 for possession and damages under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act. He alleged that he was forcibly dispossessed from the suit premises on 22.12.2003. The plaintiff and defendant are the brothers and the premises in question is being used for 2 shop purposes. 3] The trial court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has established on the basis of the Sammati-Patra and authority Exh.20 that on 1.9.1980 he was placed in possession of the suit property by the defendant and since then he was in possession of the suit property. This document is proved and marked as Exh.22. The learned counsel for the applicant has challenged this finding on the ground that the said document has not been proved as it does not bear the signature of the defendant. However, there is no evidence brought on record to the contrary to prove that the document was fraudulent. 4] The plaintiff has examined himself and one witness and the defendant has examined himself and one Abdul Sattar, the president of Jama Masjid Trust, who is the landlord. On the basis of the rent receipts produced on the record, the evidence of the witnesses and the cross examination of DW-2, Abdul Sattar, the trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit shop on the relevant date i.e. on 22.12.2003 and he was again dispossessed from the suit property. Hence, the decree for restoration of the possession has been passed. 5] The learned counsel has urged that the trial Court has ignored the evidence lead by the defendant 3 i.e. the oral evidence of the defendant sole and the oral evidence of DW-2 Abdul Sattar. However, the same has been considered in para 13 and 14 of the judgment and it has been held that DW-2 has admitted that he has received rent from the plaintiff to the extent of Rs.12,750/- through Syndicate Bank. The evidence of DW-2 has been partly acted upon to hold that the plaintiff has established his possession over the suit property prior to 21.12.2003 and some part of the evidence of DW-2 was disbelieved. The trial Court has recorded a finding that the ingredients of Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act have been fulfilled and hence, the decree for restoration of possession has been passed. The view taken by the trial Court cannot, therefore, be faulted with. At any rate, it is a possible view taken, which needs no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. There is neither any perversity pointed out regarding such finding, nor any illegality. 6] The learned counsel has relied upon the decision of this Court reported in 2000(3) Bom C.R.34 [Shri Ganesh D. Daivajna vs. Prakash S. Salkar]; 2008(5) Bom.C.R. 149 [Shammi Nagpal vs. Sudhir Nagpal and ors; 2001 (Supp.2) Bom. C.R. 640 [Dady Nowroji Adenwalla and others vs. Burjor H. Antia and others and 2001(3) Bom. C.R. 263 [Stanley Parker Jones vs. Bansraj Laltaprasad Mishra]. The question whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit 4 property on a particular date and whether he was illegally dispossessed from the suit premises is a question of fact and the finding in respect of which depends upon the appreciation of evidence. Once it is established that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property on or before 22.12.2003 and that he was dispossessed unlawfully by the defendant on the said date, there is no question of the aforesaid judgments produced, being made applicable to such situation. It is also not in dispute that suit was filed within a period of six months from the date of dispossession. Hence, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel are not applicant to the facts of the present case. 7] In the result, there is no substance in the revision application. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE Rvjalit