HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.R.P. No. 2448 of 2009 DATED: 27.01.2010 Between: B. Anasuyamma And two others .. Petitioners/ Defendants And B. Sulochanamma .. Respondent/ Plaintiff O R D E R:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 25.11.2008 in O.S. No. 124 of 2000 on the file II Additional Senior Civil Judge at Nellore, whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act seeking delivery of possession of the schedule property, was decreed as prayed for. The facts of the case in brief are that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the in-laws and defendant No.3 is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff, who is the respondent herein. The husband of the plaintiff was granted patta for the plaint schedule property in R.C.E./1/412/1989 by the then Tahsildar, Nellore, and her husband constructed a house in two portions with brick walls and asbestos sheet roof, and later died on 30.06.1996 under suspicious circumstances. When the plaintiff gave a complaint against the defendants, they bore grudge against her, committed house trespass, beat her, snatched away her wearing apparels and threatened her to vacate the house. Then, the Superintendent of Police, Nellore, registered a case in Cr.No.148 of 1996 against the defendants. The Election Commissioner of India issued a voter identity card in favour of the plaintiff and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nellore issued possession certificate by showing her address as that of the plaint schedule property. When the defendants made an attempt to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the schedule property, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No.88 of 1997 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Court, Nellore, for permanent injunction. In the suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. On 01.04.1997, when the plaintiff along with her children had gone to her parents’ house at Nawabpet, Nellore, the defendants broke open the lock of the schedule property and put up their own lock highhandedly, and on 03.04.1997, the learned Advocate Commissioner, who inspected the schedule property, filed a report to the effect that the defendants were in possession of the plaint schedule property. Again, the plaintiff gave another report to the police, who registered another Cr.No.63 of 1997 against the defendants. Thus, the defendants highhandedly dispossessed the plaintiff from the schedule property and did not allow her even to take her belongings, and since then she is residing with her parents. Hence, the suit for recovery of possession of the schedule property under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The defendants filed written statement contending that an extent of 33 1/3 ankanams of site described in the written statement was originally owned by Kondapalli Pulla Reddy, S/o.Krishna Reddy. On 04.11.1979, K.Pulla Reddy sold the site to defendant Nos.1 and 2 under an agreement of sale for Rs.7,000/- along with a thatched house situated therein admeasuring three ankanams, and on payment of the entire sale consideration, the possession of the property was delivered to defendant Nos.1 and 2 on the same day. Subsequently, defendant Nos.1 and 2 removed the constructions made therein and got constructed a house with asbestos sheet roof in an extent of 11 ankanams and a thatched house in an extent of 3 ankanams therein, as such, the schedule property is the absolute property of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and others have no right, title or possession over the property. Six months after marriage, the plaintiff and her husband shifted their residence to Nawabpet, and the patta said to have been issued in favour of the plaintiff, is a bogus one. The report of the Advocate Commissioner in O.S. No.88 of 1997 clearly reveals that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are only in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. There is no cause of action to file this suit and the present suit is filed with an ulterior motive and only to take possession of the schedule property by illegal means. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial: (i) Whether the suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is maintainable? (ii) Whether the vacant site was allotted to the husband of the plaintiff whereupon constructions were made? (iii) Whether defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having right, title and interest thereto? (iv) Whether defendant No.1 had effected improvements on the suit property? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property? (vi) Whether the defendants entered upon the suit property high-handedly? On behalf of the plaintiff, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B38 were marked. The trial Court, after examining the oral and documentary evidence and arguments advanced on either side, answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. There is no necessity to go into all the details. It is suffice to notice the findings recorded by the trial Court which read as under: “Thus, Ex.A2 out and out reflects the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property as contended by her in plaint. Further, it is also averred in paragraph “4” of the caveat petition that “at last, she (plaintiff) received Rs.13,000/- in the mediation of certain elders and voluntarily vacated the portion of the schedule house and she is ill-advised and squatting against the schedule house and trying to grab the schedule house”. If really, the plaintiff was vacated from schedule property by receiving Rs.13,000/- as contended by the defendants in their caveat petition, it should be mentioned in the caveat petition with regard to actual date of alleged vacation. On the other hand, Ex.A5 certified copy of possession certificate issued by the then Revenue Authorities dated 14.11.1996 would show that the plaintiff herein was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property on the said date. It is vehemently urged on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiff did not make any endeavour to file the alleged house-site patta said to have been issued in favour of her husband in Court to substantiate her title over the schedule property. I am unable to convince with that submission since, in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, which is summary remedy in nature, the person who was wrongfully dispossessed from a house property could recover the same by proving previous possession without being required to prove his/her title over that property. Further, it is clear from the cross- examination of PW1 that she mortgaged house-site patta in the Bank of India. Therefore, non-filing of house-site patta in Court no way vitiates the case of the plaintiff. In the present matter, written statement is filed by the 1st defendant and the same is adopted by defendant Nos.2 and 3, and it is also the specific contention of defendant No.1 from her written statement that she purchased the plaint schedule property under an agreement of sale. But, significantly, defendant No.1 did not evince any interest to step into witness box though she is mother-in-law of the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 is examined as DW1 and he almost reiterates the averments made in the written statement filed by defendant No.1 in his chief-examination, which is filed by way of an affidavit. A glance over cross-examination of DW1 discloses his ignorance on material points to the effect that “he does not remember the year of death of the husband of the plaintiff, he does not know whether the plaintiff gave a report to the police by stating that her husband died in suspicious circumstances, he does not remember whether they filed a caveat petition against the plaintiff in the year 1996 and he does not know the documents filed by the plaintiff in the present suit”. The ignorance on the part of DW1, who is no other than the father of the husband of the plaintiff, is not justified under law. The burden of proof as to any particular fact under Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act lies on the person, who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is proved by any law that the burden of proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. In the present matter, the defendants, who came forward with a specific defence that the plaintiff, who used to reside in the plaint schedule property for sometime, vacated the schedule property by receiving Rs.13,000/- on the mediation made by them before elders, have miserably failed to substantiate their defence. On the other hand, Ex.A2, which is the caveat petition filed by defendant No.1 herein against the plaintiff admits the possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. In this context, cross-examination of DW1 discloses that “the old door number of the suit schedule house is 27-1409 admeasuring 33-1/4 ankanams”. As observed supra, Ex.A2 discloses the address of the plaintiff as 27/1409. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the other documents relied upon by the defendants are of no avail to their defence. It is further submitted on behalf of the defendants that the suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction against the defendants in O.S. No.88 of 1997 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Nellore was dismissed, as such, the plaintiff herein is not entitled to seek the present relief again. The said submission does not hold water, since it is the specific case of the plaintiff herein that during the pendency of the suit, she was dispossessed from the plaint schedule property on 01.04.1997. Further, in paragraph 40 of the judgment delivered in that suit, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore was pleased to observe that Ex.B8 plaint copy in O.S.No 124 of 2000 marked in the said suit reveals that the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession in the year 2000 when she was alleged to have been dispossessed on 01.04.1997. But, in fact, the plaintiff herein filed the present suit on 10.09.1997 under C.F.No.5852 seeking permanent injunction to sue the matter as forma pauperis, as such, the observation by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore that in paragraph No.40 in judgment delivered in O.S. No.88 of 1997 is no way impediment for the plaintiff herein to invoke the present relief. In the present set of facts and the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff herein is perfectly entitled to invoke the relief under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, as prayed for. Hence, these six issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant Nos. 1 to 3 directing them to put the plaintiff in possession of the plaint schedule property under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act within three months from the date of the decree and the judgment, failing which, the plaintiff is at liberty to initiate execution proceedings as contemplated under law. Since the suit is instituted as forma pauperis, the defendants have to pay suit costs to the Government under proper acknowledgement. The office is directed to send a copy of the judgment to the District Collector, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District.” From the above, it is clear that the petitioners-defendants miserably failed to substantiate their case. On the other hand, they have admitted the previous possession of the respondent-plaintiff. The learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants tried to impress upon this Court that the plaintiff, in order to establish her possession, has not filed any proof to show that the plaint schedule property is an assigned land in her husband’s name. Relevant provisions of the Specific Relief Act read as under. Section 6:- Suit by person dispossessed of immoveable property: Section 6(2) :- No suit under this section shall be brought a) after expiry of six months from the date of dispossession or b) against the Government Section 6(4):- nothing in this Section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof. The above provision of law makes it clear that whether one has title or not can seek redelivery of the possession within a period of six months from the date of dispossession. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner was dispossessed from her property on 01.04.1997 and the suit was filed within six months thereafter i.e. on 10.09.1997. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff, and the impugned judgment does not call for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits, and the same is, accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J 27th January, 2010 bcj