- (1.) Sher Singh has filed this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 22nd of December, 1975 by which his suit for possession was dismissed. The facts of the case read as under :- Sher Singh, plaintiff brought a suit for possession of land measuring one Kanal six Marlas situate on the eastern side of Khasra No. 2/1, Rectangle No. 18 (4 Kanals 10 Marlas), bearing Khewat No. 317/225, Khatauni No. 411, situate at Nabha, on the allegations that he was in lawful possession as owner of this land for the lst about 30 years, that on December, 7, 1968 the defendants illegally and without his consent, dispossessed him from this land and that in spite of his request, the defendants refused to hand over the possession of the land in dispute to him. The defendants contested the suit. It was pleaded by them that Sham Singh defendant was in possession of the land in dispute since long and he had sold the same to Mistri Bachan Singh vide a registered sale deed dated December 2, 1968 (copy Exhibit D/1). A plea was also taken that the suit was barred by limitation. On the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed. The trial Court held that the suit was barred by limitation as the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the land during the last 12 years prior to the institution of the suit. It was also decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to get back possession of the land. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and held that the plaintiff was entitled to get back possession without proving his title in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the defendants came up in appeal to this Court. As earlier observed their appeal was allowed by the learned Single Judge. Hence the present appeal.
(2.) The learned Single Judge found that the suit of the plaintiff was for possession and based on title, and was not a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, that the plaintiff had failed to prove his title to the property, and that in view of the Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Lachman v. Shambhu Narain and others,1911 33 ILR(All) 174, he could not be granted any decree for possession of the land under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act even if the suit had been filed within six months of the alleged date of dispossession.
(3.) Mr. R.K. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the appellant contested the aforesaid findings of the learned Single Judge and submitted that the plaintiff had proved his possession over the property in dispute, that the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Lachman's case has been over-ruled by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Nair Service Society Limited v. K.C. Alexander and others, 1968 AIR(SC) 1165 that the defendant did not prove any right or title of his in the property and that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for possession on the basis of his possession.;