This revision petition arises from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff (II), Kokrajhar in Title Suit No. 5 of 1981. 2. The case of the plaintiff (Opposite party No.1) is that he purchased the suit land under a registered deed of sale from one Ramdhani. He was possessing the suit land from the date of purchase till 6.12.1980. On 6.12.1980, the defendants (petitioner & opposite parties 2 to 7) forcibly dispossessed him without his consent from the suit land and subsequently erected a thatched house on the northern side of the suit land. There­fore, the plaintiff instituted the Title Suit No.5 of 1981 for rec­overy of the possession of the suit land by demolishing the thatched house, under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short the "Act"). The defendant contested the suit. After hearing the parties the learned Munsiff decreed the suit. Hence this petition in this Court. 3. Sri K. P. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Munsiff has no jurisdiction to pass the decree for possession by demolishing the thatched house under section 6 of the Act. In other words, the decree for demolition of the thatched house cannot be passed in a suit under section 6 of the Act as it involves the question of title. Therefore, the plaintiff is to be directed to file a regular suit by rejecting the plaint as the relief for demolition of the thatched house is out­side the scope of section 6 of the Act. 4. Mr. Sen learned counsel for the petitioner has referred me to a decision of the Calcutta High Court as reported in Sona Mia vs. Prakash Chandra, AIR 1940 Cal 464. In that case, it has been held that : "All that the Court can do under S. 9 (now sec. 6) Specific Relief Act, is to restore the plaintiffs to physical possession. It cannot direct the defendants to remove any structures which they have erected on the land or permit the plaintiffs to pull down the structures. In a suit under S. 9 (now sec. 6) of the Act the question of the title of the respective parties is not adjudicated upon and, there­fore, it would be wrong to pass any order regarding the struc­tures on the land." (words within brackets have been supplied) 5. In a suit under S. 9 (now sec. 6) of the Act the question of the title of the respective parties is not adjudicated upon and, there­fore, it would be wrong to pass any order regarding the struc­tures on the land." (words within brackets have been supplied) 5. The question for consideration is whether a decree for Khass (vacant) possession of the suit land by demolishing the thatched house can be passed under section 6 of the Act. 6. It is well settled that in a suit under section 6 of the Act, no question of title either of the plaintiff or the defen­dant can be raised or gone into. The question of title is irre­levant in a suit under that section. The plaintiff will be en­titled to succeed without proving any title and the defendant cannot succeed even though he may be in possession to establish the best of all the titles. (See Yeshwant Singh vs. Jagadish Singh, AIR 1968 SC 620 ). 7. In M. C. Chockalingam vs. Monickavasagam, AIR 1974 SC 184, the Supreme Court has observed : "Section 6 frowns upon forcible dispossession without recourse to law but does not at the tame time declare that the possession of the evicted person is a lawful possession. The question of lawful possession does not enter the issue at that stage. All that the Court is then required to consider is whether an evicted person has been wrongfully dispossessed and he has come to the Court within six months of the dispossession. The various civil rights between the landlord and the tenant will have to be adjudicated upon finally in a regular civil suit if filed." Therefore, the question of title is irrelevant in a suit under section 6 of the Act. Section 6 of the Act is meant for a temporary measure to protect possession of a person against the person who breaks the law. Even if a defendant has a good title to the land, the defendant cannot take the law into his own hand and forcibly evict the plaintiff. The civil rights bet­ween the plaintiff and the defendant has to be adjudicated upon finally in a regular suit if filed. 8. Even if a defendant has a good title to the land, the defendant cannot take the law into his own hand and forcibly evict the plaintiff. The civil rights bet­ween the plaintiff and the defendant has to be adjudicated upon finally in a regular suit if filed. 8. The main or real relief, in the present case, is the vacant or khass possession of the suit land The vacant or khass possession of the suit land cannot be given to the plaintiff without demolishing the thatched house standing thereon, other­wise it would be like Shakespear's "pound of blood''. The demolition of the house is a further or consequential relief as the delivery of Khass or vacant possession of the land depends upon the demolition of the thatched house. The decree for demo­lition of the thatched house is a natural and necessary relief entitled to the plaintiff in the nature and circumstances of the case. The power of the Court to grant such a relief inheres from its powers to grant the chief or main relief. In other words, it is an implied power of the Court to grant such a relief. Therefore, Court can pass a decree for demolition of the house. In this view of the matter, with a great respect I am unable to agree with the decision of the Calcutta High Court referred to above, and the contention of the learned counsel must fail. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. No costs.