Judgement JUDGEMENT :- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Manipur. in Civil Appeal No. 89 of 1970 (41 of 1971). 2. The plaintiffs brought a suit for eviction of the defendants from a plot of land measuring about five acres. Their case was that they were in possession of the land since 1944 and had jhuming cultivation therein at intervals of 10 to 20 years. While the cultivation could not be done, they used to collect timbers, wooden posts and other building materials from jungles on the suit land. They were dispossessed from the suit land by the defendants on 24th January, 1968. The defendants were found dinging the land for the purpose of raising houses on the land without the consent or permission of the plaintiffs. They, therefore, came with the present suit, inter alia, for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere with their possession and evict them from the disputed land, as stated above, after demolition of their houses and structures on the suit-land. The learned trial Court framed the following issues : "1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ? 3. Whether the land in question is a public land or private land ? 4. Whether the defendants took permission of the Khullakpe concerned before settling at the land in question ? 5. Whether the plaintiffs art entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?" 3. After trial, the learned Munsiff dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge upheld the judgement and decree of the learned Munsiff, The learned Courts below dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove "right of ownership" to the suit land. 4. Shri A. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-appellants, submits that the learned Courts below misconceived the law involved in the suit and as such their judgements and decrees have been vitiated. The learned Lower Appellate Court has started by saving that the plaintiffs suit is based on proprietary title, whereas, learned Counsel submits, his suit is not one based on title but one based on possession. At the same time learned Counsel submits that the suit is under Section 6(4) of the Specific Relief Act. 1963 (hereinafter called the Act). The learned Lower Appellate Court has started by saving that the plaintiffs suit is based on proprietary title, whereas, learned Counsel submits, his suit is not one based on title but one based on possession. At the same time learned Counsel submits that the suit is under Section 6(4) of the Specific Relief Act. 1963 (hereinafter called the Act). Section 6 of the said Act may be quoted : "6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property - (1) If any person is dispossessed without hip consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that, may be set up in such suit (2) No suit under this section shall be brought - (a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or (b) against, the Government. (3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed. (4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof." Sub-Section (1) of this section clearly shows that the suit contemplated by this Sub-Section is one purely based on possession and for possession. It is of a summary nature and appeal has been barred from the decree passed in such a suit, and the period of limitation for the suit is also very short, viz.. six months. Sub-Section (4) contemplates a suit of a regular nature to establish title of the plaintiff and for recovery of possession. In the case of Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C. Alexandar. AIR 1968 SC 1165 , it has been held by the Supreme Court : "Provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of Specific Relief Act are not mutually exclusive so that after the period of six months is over it cannot be said that a suit based on prior possession alone is not possible. Section 8 of the Specific Relief Act does not limit the kinds of suit but only lays down that the procedure laid down by Civil Procedure Code must be followed. This is different from saying that a suit based on possession alone is incompetent after expiry of six months. Section 8 of the Specific Relief Act does not limit the kinds of suit but only lays down that the procedure laid down by Civil Procedure Code must be followed. This is different from saying that a suit based on possession alone is incompetent after expiry of six months. The correct position is that if Section 9 of the Specific Belief Act is utilised the plaintiff need not prove title and the title of the defendant does not avail him. When, however, the period of six months has passed questions of title can be raised by the defendant and if he does so the plaintiff must establish a better title or fail. In other words, the right is only restricted to possession only in a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act but that does not bar suit on prior possession within 12 years and title need not be proved unless the defendant can prove one. The present amended Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act bring out this difference. Article 64 enables a suit within 12 years from dispossession for possession of immovable property based on possession and not on title, when the plaintiff while in possession of the property has been dispossessed. Article 65 is for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title." In AIR 1970 SC 846 , (Somnath Herman v. Dr. S.P. Raju) the Supreme Court has held : "Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act is in no way inconsistent with the position that as against a wrongdoer, prior possession of the plaintiff, in an action of ejectment, is sufficient title, even if the suit be brought more than six months after the act of dispossession complained of and that the wrongdoer cannot successfully resist the suit by showing that the title and right to possession are in a third person." 5. The suit having been filed in 1969, admittedly the Specific Relief Act, 1963, applies to the case in hand. Sections 5 and 6 of the said Act are in pari materia with Sections 8 and 9 respectively of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The suit having been filed in 1969, admittedly the Specific Relief Act, 1963, applies to the case in hand. Sections 5 and 6 of the said Act are in pari materia with Sections 8 and 9 respectively of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The settled law, therefore, is that when a plaintiff brings for recovery of possession a suit based on possession, he will be entitled to get a decree for possession against a defendant under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, without proving his title, unless the defendant proves one. In other words, if the plaintiff can prove that before the defendant wrongfully dispossessed him, he (plaintiff) was in possession and the suit is not barred under Article 64 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the plaintiff will be entitled to decree for possession. 6. The learned Courts below did not address themselves to this aspect of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and involved in the suit and as such their decrees have been vitiated and are liable to be set aside. I accordingly set aside their judgments and decrees and remand the case to the learned trial Court to find. (i) Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the land before the defendants came to possession; (ii) If the answer is in the affirmative, whether the plaintiffs were dispossessed on the 24th January, 1968. or any other date ? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs have brought the suit within 12 years from the date of alleged dispossession and it is not barred under Article 64 of the Limitation Act. and dispose of the suit in accordance with law. The parties will be entitled to adduce fresh evidence in the case. 7. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.