ORDER : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. The instant civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.05.2019 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division-I), Deoghar in Title Suit No.163 of 2015, whereby and whereunder learned trial court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff under section 6 of Specific Relief Act granting relief of the recovery of the possession over the suit property. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the land appertaining to Jamabandi No.48/20, Plot No.335 was originally recorded in the name of Sukar Dom during last Survey Settlement known of Gantzer’s Settlement of the year 1932 as Basouri land. The recorded tenant died leaving behind a son Marihan Mirdha, who sold a portion of the said land comprising area 2 decimals to one Md. Hussain through registered sale deed dated 30.11.1985. The purchaser, Md. Hussain got mutated his name in the Circle Officer, Deoghar vide Mutation Case No.351/1985-86 and his name was entered into Register-II. The said Md. Hussain sold 380 sq. ft. of his said land to the plaintiff Smt. Bandana Devi through registered sale deed dated 19.04.2001. The said land is 10ft. x 38ft. in area. It is further alleged that the said Md. Hussain sold the rest of the land to another person Mr. Arvind. After purchasing 380 sq. ft. land, the plaintiff constructed asbestos roof room/hall over her purchased land within area measuring 10ft. x 20ft. from the east to west and 18 ft. of land was left opened towards west side for other use. It is further alleged that in absence of the plaintiff, the defendant has encroached upon the said vacant portion of the land of the plaintiff towards the western side measuring 10 ft. x 18 ft. by putting asbestos sheet over the boundary wall and making as a room and taken possession over the land in the month of Sarvan, 2015 i.e. in or about 10.08.2015 to 20.08.2015. When the plaintiff along with her husband returned on 25.08.2015 and went to see her land and room, they found that the defendant had made asbestos room over his vacant portion of land towards western side, which is fully described in the suit scheduled and sketch map attached with the plaint. When the plaintiff along with her husband returned on 25.08.2015 and went to see her land and room, they found that the defendant had made asbestos room over his vacant portion of land towards western side, which is fully described in the suit scheduled and sketch map attached with the plaint. The plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the suit scheduled property but he flatly denied and threatened for dire consequences. The defendant/ original petitioner, Ramchandra Mridha had filed a Title Suit No.105 of 2000 in the court of learned Sub Judge for declaring the same in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff namely, Md. Husain dated 30.11.1985 as void and the said sale deed was held to be valid up to 1 ½ decimal land out of total 2 decimals vide judgment dated 17.05.2006. The defendant/ original petitioner also preferred an appeal i.e. Title Appeal No.23 of 2006 and cross appeal was filed by the plaintiff vide Title Appeal No.24 of 2006 in the court of District Judge, Deoghar. Both the appeals were heard and disposed of through common judgment and Title Appeal No.23 of 2015 filed by Ramchandra Mirdha was dismissed holding that Ramchandra Mirdha was not the adopted son of Marihan Mirdha and Title Appeal No.24 of 2006 filed by the plaintiff was allowed and the sale deed of 2 decimals of land in favour of Md. Hussain was declared legal. The suit land was all along in peaceful possession of the plaintiff since after her purchase. Therefore, she is entitled for recovery of possession under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. 4. On the other hand, the case of the defendant/ original petitioner is that the he is the adopted son of the Marihan Mirdha, who was rightful owner of the suit property, hence, he inherited the same. The said Marihan Mirdha died much before 30.11.1985 therefore execution of sale deed on that date does not arise. Therefore, subsequent sale deed executed by the alleged purchaser, Md. Hussain from Marihan Mirdha to the plaintiff of this case namely Smt. Bandana Devi is also of no legal consequence and the plaintiff never came into the possession of the suit land as such no question of encroachment of the suit property arise. The suit land is still in possession of the defendant as inherited from the rightful owner Marihan Mirdha as his adopted son. The suit land is still in possession of the defendant as inherited from the rightful owner Marihan Mirdha as his adopted son. He had also constructed a residential house over it and besides there is a Mata Mansa temple where annual idol of goddess Mata Mansa is put on worship by the entire people of Mauza Barmasia. The plaintiff has got a sale deed executed during pendency of Title Suit No.105 of 2000 but was never in possession of the same but in course of time, the plaintiff using the money and muscle power and influencing local police personnels forcibly made entry over a small piece room constructed by the defendant and wrongful wants to have made construction over the same. It is the plaintiff, who has illegally and forcibly entered into the possession over the some constructed portion of the premises of the defendant. Therefore, there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged purchase of the suit property is also hit by doctrine of lis pendens. It is also pleaded that against the judgment of the appellant court passed in Title Appeal No.23 of 2006 filed by the defendant(s), Second Appeal No. 197 of 2010 has been preferred before the Hon’ble High Court, which is still pending for adjudication. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties following issues were settled by the trial court for adjudication:- (i) Whether the suit filed and framed by the plaintiff is maintainable on facts or in law? (ii) Whether plaintiff has valid cause of action for filing the present suit? (iii) Whether plaintiff’s suit is barred by law of limitation, res-judicata, waiver, acquiescence and estoppel or any other law? (iv) Whether plaintiff has been possessed by the defendants over the suit property within six months of the filing of the present suit? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for restoration his possession over the suit property over which plaintiff has been dispossessed? (vi) Whether plaintiff is entitle for any other relief or reliefs? 6. In order to substantiate its case, the plaintiff has examined herself as a witness, P.W.1 along with another witness P.W.2, Lalan Pd. (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for restoration his possession over the suit property over which plaintiff has been dispossessed? (vi) Whether plaintiff is entitle for any other relief or reliefs? 6. In order to substantiate its case, the plaintiff has examined herself as a witness, P.W.1 along with another witness P.W.2, Lalan Pd. Verma and also placed reliance upon following documentary evidences:- (i) Ext.1 to 1/a- Two sale deeds (ii) Ext.2 is Ext L in T.S. 105/2000 (iii) Ext.3 is electric Bill (iv)Ext.4 is order dated 15.10.2001 (order of SDM, Deoghar passed in Cr. Misc. Case No.297 of 2001) (v) Ext.5 to 5/a are two judgments.(Judgement of Title Suit No.105 of 2006 and Title Appeal Nos.23 of 2006 and 24 of 2006) 7. On the other hand, the defendant has examined 6 witnesses including himself but no documentary evidence has been filed in support of his claim. 8. Learned trial court has taken together for adjudication the core issue Nos.4 and 5 as primary issues and held that on the basis of registered sale deed, the plaintiff has acquired right, title, interest and possession over her entire purchased property, total area 380 sq. ft. She has taken electric connection and also paying municipal tax. The defendant has also lost his suit up to First Appellate Court for cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff dated 30.11.1985. Although, Second Appeal No. 197 of 2010 is still pending but the plaintiff has been able to prove the factum of possession within six months prior to the filing of the suit, which was wrongfully encroached by the defendant during her absence. Accordingly, the aforesaid issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff along with other ancillaries issues, hence, the suit of the plaint was decreed against which this civil revision has been preferred by the defendant/original petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that original petitioner, Ramchandra Mirdha @ Ramchandra Turi died during pendency of this petitioner and his legal heirs/representatives have been substituted vide order dated 28.04.2025. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment submits that the plaintiff was never in possession over the suit land and entire story about the claim of possession of the plaintiff is concocted, false and fabricated and motivated with misuse of provision of section 6 of Specific Relief Act. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment submits that the plaintiff was never in possession over the suit land and entire story about the claim of possession of the plaintiff is concocted, false and fabricated and motivated with misuse of provision of section 6 of Specific Relief Act. The suit was barred by Doctrine of “sub-judice” under section 10 of C.P.C. It is further submitted that the plaintiff’s claim of possession over the suit property is wholly unsubstantiated and the suit filed by the defendant i.e. Title Suit No. 105 of 2000 for declaring the sale deed executed by Marihan Mirdha in favour of Md. Hussain dated 30.11.1985 itself is sub judice in Second Appeal No. 197 of 2010 filed by the petitioners. It is further submitted that in the suit under section 6 of Specific Relief Act, the question of title or better right of possession does not arise for adjudication rather only issue required to be decided as to whether the plaintiff was in possession at any time six months prior to date of filing of the suit. In this connection, the plaintiff herself in her pleadings and evidence admits that she was residing elsewhere and the constructed room on the suit land remained locked and unused. There is no credible material on record to demonstrate that she ever exercised dominion over the specific 10ft x 18ft of land, which she alleged that the same was encroached by the defendant in Shravan month, 2015. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been in possession of the suit premises and consistently claim such possession throughout a long chain of litigation. In Title Suit No.105 of 2000, which was filed by the original petitioner against the plaintiff’s vendor, Md. Hussain. The present plaintiff/opposite party was made a party as defendant second party in that suit also. Learned trial court framed an issue regarding possession of the suit land. However, no finding was given on that issue despite it being a central point of the case. This failure left the question of actual possession unresolved. Hussain. The present plaintiff/opposite party was made a party as defendant second party in that suit also. Learned trial court framed an issue regarding possession of the suit land. However, no finding was given on that issue despite it being a central point of the case. This failure left the question of actual possession unresolved. Unfortunately, in the Civil Appeal Nos.23 & 24 of 2006, which were jointly adjudicated by the First Appellate Court, there was observation that the defendant witnesses Nos.6 and 9 have disclosed the possession of the present petitioners over the suit land from several years but no final verdict regarding possession was given by the learned appellate court also. It is further submitted that learned trial court has further failed to appreciate that the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff/opposite party vis electric bill (Ext.3), Mutation Order (Ext.2) and sale deeds (Ext.1 and 1/a) do not establish physical possession. The oral evidence of defendant has been ignored by the learned Trial Court without specifying any valid reasons. Therefore, the impugned judgment suffers from gross jurisdictional error, illegal and cause for interference by this Court by setting aside the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the reported judgment in Mohd. Mehtab Khan and Others Vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan and Others (2013) 9 SCC 221 . 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party/plaintiff has controverted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that there is no legal substance in the aforesaid points of argument. It is admitted position by the original petitioner himself in his written statement that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. Although, it is alleged that possession was obtained forcefully with the assistance of local police personnels and anti-social elements. If above facts are admitted to be true for the sake of argument, it is very strange that the original petitioner, who has already instituted a Title Suit No. 105 of 2000 in which, the present plaintiff was also party, the factum of illegal dispossession of the petitioners and prayer for recovery of possession was not incorporated in that suit. Moreover, the original petitioner/defendant did not take recourse even under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Therefore, bald plea of the petitioners that he was wrongfully dispossessed from the suit property, cannot be accepted. Moreover, the original petitioner/defendant did not take recourse even under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Therefore, bald plea of the petitioners that he was wrongfully dispossessed from the suit property, cannot be accepted. It is further submitted that the documentary evidence led by the plaintiff/opposite party like mutation of her name in the municipal corporation, electric bill and taxes are sufficient documents to prove her possession over the suit property and has rightly been relied by the learned Trial Court. It is further submitted that the original petitioner/defendant himself admits that he has lost suit up to the First Appellate Court and question of possession was never decided finally between the parties. Therefore, this suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession was never in question in the title suit either filed by the plaintiff or by the defendant of this case. In view of above, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree calling for any interference. This appeal has no merits and fit to be dismissed. 11. I have gone through the impugned order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both parties. 12. It appears that suit property is purchased by the plaintiff/opposite party through registered sale deed executed by Md. Hussain dated 19.04.2001. The plaintiff has also got mutation and paying the revenue/taxes and electric bills, therefore, enjoying ownership and possession over the suit property since the date of purchase. The predecessor in title of the plaintiff has also obtained the suit property through registered sale deed dated 30.11.1985 executed by Marihan Mirdha and vide mutation case No.351/1985-86 got mutated his name in circle office and acquired title and possession. The defendant/petitioner started disputing the title and possession of plaintiff by instituting a suit vide Title Suit No.105 of 2000 whereby the relief for cancellation of sale-deed dated 30.11.1985 executed by Marihan Mirdha in favour of Md. Hussain (vendor of plaintiff) was sought for but the suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 17.05.2006. Title appeal No.23 of 2006 filed by the original petitioner, Ramchandra Mirdha was also dismissed. Although, second appeal filed by the petitioners is still pending for adjudication but the suit property, which was in possession of plaintiff/opposite party, was not disputed. Hussain (vendor of plaintiff) was sought for but the suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 17.05.2006. Title appeal No.23 of 2006 filed by the original petitioner, Ramchandra Mirdha was also dismissed. Although, second appeal filed by the petitioners is still pending for adjudication but the suit property, which was in possession of plaintiff/opposite party, was not disputed. The opposite party was illegally dispossessed by petitioner, hence a suit under section 6 of Specific Relief Act was instituted and decreed. 13. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I don’t find any error of law in the impugned judgment calling for any interference, hence, this revision stands dismissed. 14. Interim order, if any passed in this case, stands vacated. 15. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 16. Let a copy of this order be sent back to the trial court for information and needful.