JUDGMENT 1. The object of sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act is to provide a speedy remedy for that class of cases where a person in physical possession of property is forcibly dispossessed from it against his will and consent. See Tarini Mohan Mazumdar v. Ganga Prosad Chakrabarty I L.R. 14 Cal. 649 (1887).. The main question for determination therefore in a case under this section is whether the Plaintiff while in physical possession of property has been dispossessed of the same in the manner and within the time specified in the section. If he was in physical possession he can be restored to such possession under the decree of the Court. A man in joint possession of immovable property is as much in physical possession of his share as the entire body of co-share'rs are in physical possession of the whole and such joint possession can as well be physically restored in respect of his share as the possession of the whole can be restored to the entire body of co-sharers. The case of Hari Narain v. Elemjan Bibi 19 C.L.J. 117 : s.c. 19 C.W.N. 120 (1912)., is quite distinguishable from this case as there the dispossession was of the whole and possession was claimed in respect of a part so that the Court was called upon to restore quite a different state of things from that which had been disturbed. The learned Judges distinctly say "We have treated the case as being one where a party seeks possession of his share only of property from which he himself and his co-sharers have been dispossessed and it is incompetent for the Court to give possession of the whole of the property in such a case." The remarks as to exclusive possession in the judgment must be read in reference to the facts of that case and do not stand in the way of that joint physical possession being restored which existed before the disturbance. The case before the learned Munsif will be decreed if the Plaintiff proves his joint physical possession within six months of the suit.