These two Revisions are directed against the judgments and decrees dated 12.8.1985 passed by the Munsiff No. 1. Hailakandi in Title Suit No. 20 of 1984 and Title Suit No. 21 of 1984 decreeing the suits for recovery of possession under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The defendants of the suits have preferred these two Revisions. Same set of defendants in both the suits and same point of law involves in these two Revisions, so they are heard analogous and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The land in suit belonged to one Mastan Mia and on his death it devolved to different groups of heirs. Plaintiffs Abeda Kbatun and Md. Sunahar Ali Choudhury and the defendants Nasiruddin Laskar and others purchased the same plot of land on different dates from different group of heirs of late Mastan Mia. The plaintiffs Abeda and Sunahar Ali Choudhury purchased on 23.5.1983 whereas the defendants purchased few days earlier, i.e. on 7.5.83, 17.5.83, 18.5.83 and 20.5.1983. 3. The case for the plaintiffs in the suits was that by an amicable partition Hilalur Rahman Barbhuiyan and Khalilur Rahman Barbhuiyan got the eastern half and western half of the suit Dag No. 230 and was in peaceful possession and that Hilalur sold the eastern half of the Dag to the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 20 of 1984 on 23.5.1983 and Khalilur sold his western half of that Dag to the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 21 of 1984 and they got delivery of possession. It was alleged that on 5.11.1983 the defendants constructed a house within the night over a portion of the suit Dag and dispossessed the plaintiffs from that portion and subsequently in December the defendants forcibly reaped away the paddy grown by the plaintiff on the eastern portion and forcibly dispossessed them from the entire suit land Dag No. 230. So, the plaintiffs instituted the suits No. 20 of 1984 and 21 of 1984 separately under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. 4. So, the plaintiffs instituted the suits No. 20 of 1984 and 21 of 1984 separately under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. 4. The case for the defendants was that the suit Dag No. 230 under Patta No. 17 was in possession of Mahmudur Rahman, heir of late Mastan Mia and the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 purchased the land from him in parts on 4 different dates, i. e 7.5.1983, 17.5.1983, 18.5.1983 and 20.5.1983, and got delivery of possession of their respective portion on the date of purchase and are possessing since that time by constructing houses and growing paddy. It was stated that the plaintiffs purchased the suit land knowingly that the defendants were in possession of the same. The allegation of dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land was denied in both the suits. 5. In a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, discussions, observations and decisions on the title of the land in question are irrelevant. The Court is required only to decide the issue on possession and wrongful dispossession and not of the title. The actual remedy under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is for wrongful dispossession only. On perusal of the impugned judgments, it transpired that 'decision of title, delivery of possession to the plaintiffs by her vendors and that the documents of title of the plaintiffs were good and that of the defendants were bad etc, which were irrelevant in such a suit, were mainly considered and decided. Although the parties examined several witnesses for deciding the issues concerning section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the trial Court failed to discuss and appreciate their evidence on the point of possession and wrongful dispossession which was the only issue for deciding the suits. 6. The plaintiffs having purchased the' suit land from one branch /of the successor in interest of Mastan Mia and the defendants having purchased from another branch of the heirs of Mastan Mia unless perfect partition is effected the property devolved from Mastan Mia shall remain joint in title and possession in between the heirs and successors in interest of Mastarj Mia. Exclusive possession of the suit land by plaintiffs vendors Hilalur and Khalilur by amicable family partition Sad their delivery of possession to the plaintiffs on sale had been introduced to dislodge the presumption of jointness of title and possession of heirs and successors in interest of late .Mastan Mia. The amicable family partition, if any, as claimed by the plaintiffs, cannot be an issue for decision in a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Therefore, the trial Court committed error to accept the family partition story in order to fix exclusive possession of Hilalur and Khalilur with the suit land in order to find the plaintiffs in possession of the suit land by purchase from them. 7. Discussion, observations and decisions in the impugned judg­ments were of the nature as if the trial Court was deciding a title suit based, on the title documents of the parties. It was not a decision of a case under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Com­plicacies may arise in future if those discussions, observations and decisions in the impugned judgments are allowed to remain in record. 8. The trial Court committed jurisdictional error and acted outside the scope of section 6 of the Specific Relief Act in both the suits; 9. Both the Revisions are allowed. The impugned judgments and decrees are set aside. The suits are remanded to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law. The trial Court must keep in mind that the suits are under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and should confine only to decide on possession and alleged wrongful dispossession on the basis of the evidence on record in each suit. Question of title - or correctness/otherwise of the title documents of the parties need not be gone into. 10. Send down the case records to the trial Court with copy of this judgment immediately.