Ghooti v. Sitku

1. The 1st ground of revision has no force in it whatever, since to the suit as brought Section 92 of the Tenancy Act, had no application whatever.

2. As to the 3rd ground, the lower Court has held that all the plaintiffs were in possession and this being a finding of fact cannot be dealt with in revision. The 4th and 5th grounds have no force whatever since the defendants have admitted that the plaintiffs were in joint possession within six months before the date of the suit, although they alleged that they were in possession merely as sub-tenants. The ground of revision that needs some consideration is the 2nd ground. The suit was brought under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The plaintiffs claimed that they had been in exclusive possession and asked to be restored to exclusive possession. It was found however that they had been in joint possession and they were restored by the decree to joint possession. If such a decree is otherwise unobjectionable there was no reason why it should not be granted on the suit as brought, for plaintiffs are always entitled to a lesser relief of the same kind as they have asked for. The only question that remains is whether Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, applies to cases where a co-owner in possession of property jointly with other co-owners is dispossessed by the latter. There is a clear authority on this point with which I entirely agree. It was held in Ajiman Bibi v. Beasat Sheikh (1915) 28 IC 570 that the section could be employed in such cases. If the plaintiffs were in physical possession they can be restored to such possession as they had, under the decree of the Court. The application is dismissed with costs.

P.N/R.K

3. Application dimisssed.