Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19668 Court No. - 5 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 203 of 2022 Appellant :- Jeet Bahadur Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- Roop Chandra And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Krishan Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Rajeev Narayan Pandey,Ambrish Verma Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. None appears on behalf of the respondents despite the names of Shri Rajeev Narayan Pandey and Shri Ambrish Verma being indicated from the side of respondents. There is also no request for adjournment of the matter. 3. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to hear and decide the appeal finally. 4. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2022 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Sitapur in Civil Appeal No.46 of 2017 in re: Rampal and Others Vs. Jeet Bahadur Singh and Others. 5. The appeal had been admitted by this Court vide order dated 04.08.2022 on the following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether the first appellate court committed an error of law by completely overlooking the provisions enunciated in sub Section 4 of Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963? (ii) Whether the judgment and order of the first appellate court is perverse as the same has been passed ignoring the material evidence or by applying law erroneously? (iii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate court is perverse and against the weight of evidence on record?" 6. Till date no objections have been filed by the respondents neither, as already indicated above, there is any request for adjournment of the matter on behalf of the respondents. 7. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts set forth by the learned counsel for the appellants are that the appellants / defendants are the permanent resident of Village Malhpur, Pargana Tehsil and District Sitapur. Their ancestral house and sahan land is at its former place in the village which is situated on the west-north side of the respondents' / plaintiffs' house. 8. The contention is that the respondents' / plaintiffs' house has two main exits i.e. one on the east side and the other in the middle of the house on the north side. A room has been made on the east side of the house of the appellants, leaving some space equal to it, wherein, on the south side, a handpump is installed. The deity of Shankar Ji is established on a platform and certain trees also exist there. 9. The further contention is that on account of the dispute created by the plaintiffs, at an earlier stretch of time, a compromise had been entered into between the appellants and the plaintiffs on 02.08.1997. 10. However, in order to somehow harass the appellants and claim possession of the disputed possession of land, the plaintiffs / respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction and eviction for the disputed piece of land against the appellants / defendants which was numbered as Regular Suit No.393 of 2007 in re: Roop Chandra and Another Vs. Jeet Bahadur Singh and Others. The copy of the plaint is filed as annexure 2 to the appeal. In paragraph 4 of the plaint, it was specifically averred that in June 2006, the defendants had taken possession of the land by putting soil / mud and thereafter, on 20.07.2007, in order to raise construction over the dispute land, the defendants had collected sand, bricks, morang etc. and threatened to raise construction which compelled the plaintiffs to file the suit. 11. The appellants / defendants had put in appearance and also brought on record, the compromise that had been entered into between the plaintiffs / respondents and the defendants / appellants for the aforesaid piece of land vide the compromise dated 02.08.1997. Considering all the facts, the learned trial court, vide its judgment and order dated 31.05.2017, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the appeal, dismissed the suit. 12. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed Civil Appeal No.46 of 2017 in re: Rampal and Others Vs. Jeet Bahadur Singh and Others. The appellate court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 21.03.2022, allowed the appeal partly and has directed the appellants / defendants to remove the construction over the aforesaid piece of land and to deliver the possession to the plaintiffs. 13. Being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellants / defendants. 14. The substantial questions of law, as have been raised by the appellants, have already been indicated above. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the provision of Section 6 of the Specif Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1963") to contend that the learned appellate court has failed to appreciate that the suit, which had been filed by the plaintiffs, should have been filed within six months from the date of dispossession. 16. Placing reliance on the specific averment, as contained in paragraph 4 of the plaint itself, the argument is that when the plaintiffs themselves had indicated that the possession of the disputed piece of land had been taken by the defendants in June 2006 by putting soil / mud upon the same and the suit itself having been filed on 24.07.2007, as such, it was clearly barred under the provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act, 1963 and as in the said suit, the plaintiffs were not establishing their title to such property, consequently, the suit itself was not maintainable, which fact has not been considered by the learned appellate court while delivering the judgment. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has also invited the attention of the Court towards the fact that in the appeal preferred by the respondents / plaintiff before the appellate court, the said argument had specifically been raised, as finds place in the third paragraph of the judgment of the learned appellate court, yet, while giving its finding, the learned appellate court has failed to record findings in that regard. 18. Having heard the learned counsel of the appellants and have perused the record, it emerges that in paragraph 4 of the suit, as had been filed by the plaintiffs, it had been specifically indicated by them that the defendants had taken forcible possession of the land in dispute in June 2006. The suit had been filed on 24.07.2007. 19. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act, 1963 categorically provides that no suit under this section shall be brought after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession. However, Subsection (4) of Section 6 of the Act, 1963 provides that nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof. 20. A perusal of the suit would indicate that the same had been filed for the purpose of permanent injunction and eviction without claiming any title over the land in dispute. 21. Once from paragraph 4 of the plaint it emerges that the defendants had taken possession of the dispute property in June 2006 and the suit itself having been filed on July 2007, it appears to be clearly barred by the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act, 1963. 22. Interestingly, the learned appellate court had noted this objection in the initial part of his judgment but has failed to record findings with regard to Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act, 1963. 23. The first appellate court has committed an error of law by completely overlooking the provisions enunciated in Sub- section (2) of Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the judgment and order of the first appellate court is thus perverse as the same has been passed ignoring the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, 1963. 24. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Mehtab Khan Vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan 2013 (9) SCC 221, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, 1963 has held that a proceeding under Section 6 of the Act, 1963 is intended to be a summary proceeding, the object of which is to afford an immediate remedy to an aggrieved party to reclaim possession of which he may been unjustly denied by an illegal act of dispossession and the only issue required to be decided is as to whether the plaintiff was in possession at any time six months' prior to the date of the filing of the suit. 25. In the instant case, as already indicated above, the suit was filed on 24.07.2007 while in paragraph 4 of the plaint, the plaintiff had indicated that the possession of the disputed piece of land had been taken by the defendants in June 2006 and as such, the suit itself was filed after more than one year of the possession being taken which fact was not appreciated by the learned appellate court while passing the judgment impugned. 26. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 24. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 21.03.2022 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the appellate court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the objections as raised by the appellants / defendants herein and after hearing all the parties concerned. Let such an order be passed within a period of six months from the date of filing of the certified copy before the learned appellate court. 25. Till the decision of the appellate court, the status quo as of today pertaining to the land in question shall be maintained by the parties. 26. It is also provided that the learned appellate court shall proceed to decide the appeal without being influenced by the observations made above, as the said observations have only been made for the purpose of deciding the second appeal. 27. The records be returned back. Order Date :- 7.4.2025/S. Shivhare Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench