JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner original defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) has filed this revision petition against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional Munsif, Bikaner in Civil Suit No. 132/87 dated April 25, 1991 : The respondent plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, alleging that the defendant had taken possession of the rented, residential premises unlawfully and, therefore, the plaintiff be restored the possession of the same. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died. Hence his son Bherondan joined himself as legal representative and heir of the deceased and continued the suit. Similarly the original defendant Mulidevi also died during the pendency of the suit. Hence Suraja Devi and Asulal have been joined as defendants. The petitioner defendant appeared in the suit and resisted the same on facts as well as on law points. 2. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was forcibly and unlawfully dispossessed from the premises in question. The trial Court passed judgment and decree dated April 25,1991 directing the defendant to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question within a period of two months from the date of the judgement. It is against this judgment and decree that this revision petition has been filed. 3. It was the case of the plaintiff that he had taken the premises on rent before about 40 years for Rs. 2.50 per month. That rent was increased to Rs. 20/- in the month of February, 1979. Thereafter, the landlord wanted to raise the rent to Rs. 100/- per month, but the plaintiff did not agree. The plaintiff filed an application under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 and paid the rent in Court. Thereafter, in the month of May, 1984 deceased Tejmal (original plaintiff) had gone to Bikaner for some social work. He had called his son Bherondan at Bikaner, as he had fallen sick. Bherondan had left for Bikaneron May 28, 1984. Taking advantage of absence of deceased Tejmal and Bherondan, in the night of May 28, 1984, the defendant took possession of the premises and put her lock. When Bherondan returned on May 29, 1984 he found lock on the premises. Bherondan had left for Bikaneron May 28, 1984. Taking advantage of absence of deceased Tejmal and Bherondan, in the night of May 28, 1984, the defendant took possession of the premises and put her lock. When Bherondan returned on May 29, 1984 he found lock on the premises. On enquiry he came to know that landlord had taken forcible possession of the premises on May 28, 1984. Thereafter, deceased Tejmal informed police but nothing fruitful happened. He had also filed criminal complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (I Class), Bikaner. Ultimately, he filed the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act on July 13, 1995 for restoring his possession. 4. The petitioner defendant appeared in the suit. The petitioner admitted the fact that Tejmal was tenant of the suit premises. It was the case of the defendant that on the night of May 28, 1984 deceased Tejmal and his son Bherondan had voluntarily handed over the possession of the same. In the written statement the plea is also taken that the market value of the premises in question is Rupees 30,000/-, therefore, the trial Court had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit. 5. The trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the defendants have dispossessed the plaintiff forcibly from the premises in question on 28-5-84; 2. Is it that the market value of the premises in question is Rs. 30,000/- and, therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit; 3. Is the Court fee paid is insufficient? The trial Court held that the defendants had forcibly and unlawfully dispossessed the plaintiff from the premises in question in the night of May 28, 1984. As regards the issues pertaining to Court-fee the trial Court held that no evidence was led by the defendant on this issue and no provision of law was pointed out to show that the valuation put by the plaintiff was insufficient. It is against this judgment and decree passed by the trial Court that this revision petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant. 6. After filing of the suit on July 30th, 1984, Tejmal the original plaintiff, died on December 27, 1984 and his son Bherondan has been brought on record as his heir and legal representative. 7. On behalf of the plaintiff three witnesses were examined, namely, Bherondan, Bhanwarlal and Murlidhar. 6. After filing of the suit on July 30th, 1984, Tejmal the original plaintiff, died on December 27, 1984 and his son Bherondan has been brought on record as his heir and legal representative. 7. On behalf of the plaintiff three witnesses were examined, namely, Bherondan, Bhanwarlal and Murlidhar. Particularly Bherondan plaintiff himself and Bhanwarlal have supported the case of the plaintiff while Murlidhar has deposed about certain movement on May 14, 1984. Defendant examined Surja Devi, Bhanwari Devi, Asha Ram and Hukam Chand. After discussing the evidence, oral as well as documentary, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the case put forth by the defendant that the deceased Tejmal had agreed to accept Rs. 3,000/- and hand over the possession of the premises was an after thought. There was a averment to this effect in the written statement. Therefore, this part of the story has not been believed by the trial Court. The trial Court relied upon the oral evidence led by the plaintiff. By no stretch of reasoning it can be said that the trial Court has committed any error in appreciating the evidence. 8. It may be noted that the deceased Tejmal was in possession of the rented premises for last about 40 years. He was paying Rs. 2.50 per month which was later on increased to Rs. 20/- per month. It can never be believed that any tenant would handover, the possession of the premises for a paltry sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only). Had it been so, the conduct of the plaintiff, would not have been as disclosed in the proceedings. Immediately after coming from Bikaner, the plaintiff has lodged complaint with the police. Thereafter he filed criminal complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Ultimately he filed the civil suit on July 13, 1984. Thus, the conduct of the plaintiff also indicates that story put forth by the defendant that the plaintiff has committed breach of settlement by not handing over the possession of the rented premises and the possession of the premises was taken pursuant to the settlement cannot be believed. Again it may be noted that the story of settlement is that the settlement was arrived at for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only). There is no averment to this effect in the written statement. Again it may be noted that the story of settlement is that the settlement was arrived at for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only). There is no averment to this effect in the written statement. Thus, it is evident that story of settlement put forth by the defendant is an after thought. The trial Court has committed no error whatsoever in appreciating the evidence and in coming to the conclusion that the respondent plaintiff has been dispossessed without his consent and unlawfully from the premises in question. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the market value of the premises was Rs. 30,000/- and, therefore, the trial Court had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit. The jurisdiction of the Court is lobe decided on the basis of averment made in the plaint and not on the basis of contention raised in the written statement. In this connection while deciding the Issues No. 2 and 3 the trial Court has observed that no evidence whatsoever has been led by the plaintiff to show that the market value of the property was Rs. 30,000/-. The trial Court has also observed that no provision of law has been pointed out to show that it had no jurisdiction to decide the suit. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the original plaintiff died, all his legal representatives and heirs should have been joined in the suit. In the absence of other heirs and legal representatives the suit was not maintainable. According to defendant two other sons and one married daughter of deceased plaintiff have been left out and have not been joined. The contention cannot be accepted. If any a of the legal representatives of the deceased is on the record of the proceedings, to persue the suit or to defend the suit the proceeding would not abate. This is so because the estate of the deceased is properly represented. 11. Even otherwise if the provision of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is considered the position is altogether different. Section 6(1) of the Specific Relief Act may be reproduced herein below:- "6. This is so because the estate of the deceased is properly represented. 11. Even otherwise if the provision of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is considered the position is altogether different. Section 6(1) of the Specific Relief Act may be reproduced herein below:- "6. Suit by person dispossessed, of immovable property: (1) If any person is dispossessed without his 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." The aforesaid provision of Section 6 makes it clear that any person claiming through a person who has been dispossessed may file a suit for recovery of the possession. 12. Reference was made to the provisions of. Section 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This provision of law has no applicability to the proceedings under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In the instant case there is no question of determination of right to succession of deceased Tejmal. In summary proceedings under Section 6 of the Act, what is required to be seen is whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit premises and as to whether the plaintiff has been dispossessed of the property without his consent and otherwise than in due course of law. In this view of the matter reliance placed on the provisions of Section 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is of no help to the petitioner. 13. No other contention was raised. There is no substance in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Notices discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated.Petition dismissed. *******