JUDGMENT : M.Y. Eqbal, J. This civil revision application is directed against the ORDER :dated 18.8.95 passed by Subordinate Judge-II Munger in Title Suit No. 95/86 whereby and whereunder the suit tiled by the plaintiff opposite party under section 6 of the Specific Relied Act has been decreed and it was held that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of possession. 2. The original plaintiff namely Jaya Devi instituted the aforementioned suit but during the pendency of the suit she died and her husband and children were substituted in her place. The plaintiff's case in short is that the suit land bearing plot no. 738 is recorded in the revenue record of right in the name of one Laxman Pandit and Manorit Pandit. Similarly possession of plot no. 740 is recorded in the name of Munger Besra, Laxman Pandit and Manari Pandit and after their death their sons continued in possession. Munger Besra left plot no. 740 and became traceless. Manori Pandit acquired 3 decimals of plot no. 740 by virtue of settlement from the ex-landlord in 1921. Similarly Laxman Pandit alleged to have acquired 6 decimals of plot no. 740 from the ex-landlord in 1928 and they came and continued in possession of plot no. 740 also. The plaintiff's further case is that the two brothers partitioned the entire land of plot no. 738 and 2 1/2 decimals of plot no. 740 by private partition by virtue of which plot no. 738 and 2 1/2 decimals of plot no. 740 was allotted to the branch of Laxman Pandit and rest of the land of plot no. 740 was allotted to the branch of Manori Pandit and they came in separate possession over their respective portions. The plaintiff's further case is that after the death of Birju Pandit the remaining three sons of Laxman Pandit namely Darbari, Tulsi and Raghubir partitioned four decimals of plot no. 738 and 2 1/2 decimals of plot no. 740 in such a way that two decimals of land from east of plot no. 738 was allotted to the share and possession of Darbari Pandit. Raghubir Pandit was allotted 2 decimals of plot no. 738 and 1/4 decimal of plot no. 740 adjacent west of Darbari Pandit and Tulsi Pandit was allotted 2 1/2 decimals of plot no. 740 in such a way that two decimals of land from east of plot no. 738 was allotted to the share and possession of Darbari Pandit. Raghubir Pandit was allotted 2 decimals of plot no. 738 and 1/4 decimal of plot no. 740 adjacent west of Darbari Pandit and Tulsi Pandit was allotted 2 1/2 decimals of plot no. 740 adjacent west to Raghubir Pandit and accordingly three brothers came in separate possession over their respective share allotted to them. Birju Pandit died issueless so he was not allotted any share. In the adjacent south and west of plot no. 738 and 740 there was a common passage which was used by Raghubir and Tulsi for their egress and ingress from their houses. The plaintiff's further case is that the original plaintiff Jaya Devi purchased that 2 decimals of land with house allotted to Darbari Pandit by virtue of registered sale deed dated 13.4.73 and came and continued in possession of the same. Her name was entered in Register II after disposal of the mutation case. She used to pay rent to the knowledge of other brothers of Darbari Pandit. Further case of the plaintiffs is that she purchased house from Darbari Pandit in dilapidated condition and the western room fell down. The plaintiff got them repaired and also sunk a tube-well in between the vacant land of two rooms. The defendants have got executed a sale deed dated 27.2.86 executed by Raghubir Pandit and Tulsi Pandit and another sale deed dated 7.4.86 from Yamuna Pandit and Kishun Pandit with wrong averments. The details of the land in those sale deeds are wrong so the defendants could not come in possession over their alleged purchased land. The plaintiff's case is that the land so purchased by the defendant was never in the share or possession of Tulsi Pandi, Raghubir Pandit and Rameshwar Pandit or Hari Pandit. In a proceeding under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the aforementioned Raghubir Pandit, Tulsi Pandit and Rameshwar Pandit did not claim the said land. The plaintiff's further case is that on 2.8.86 the defendant in absence of plaintiff made attempt to enter into the purchased house of the plaintiff which was witnessed by the police and local people and others. The plaintiff's further case is that on 2.8.86 the defendant in absence of plaintiff made attempt to enter into the purchased house of the plaintiff which was witnessed by the police and local people and others. On the basis of report lodged with the police a proceeding under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated which was converted into 145 proceeding which was pending. It is alleged that the police in collusion with the defendants wrongly reported that the defendants have entered into the eastern room a week before the occurrence. It is further alleged that the defendants forcibly entered into the eastern room of the plaintiff on 2.6.86 and illegally dispossessed the plaintiff. Hence the suit. 3. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement denying and disputing the averments made in the plaint. The suit is said to be barred by limitation, waiver, estoppel and acquiescence and also barred by section 34 of Specific Relief Act. The defendants challenged the story of partition claimed by the plaintiff. The defendant's case is that there was petition between Laxman Pandit and Manori Pandit in 1917 in which plot no. 738 was partitioned in two parts. The southern half running from east to west fell in the share of Laxman Pandit with possession and north half running from east to west fell in the share and possession of Manori Pandit. The defendant's further case is that in the year 1921 Manori Pandit got settlement of 3 decimals of plot no. 740 adjacent west to the share of plot no. 738 and amalgamated the same. So Manori Pandit and his son came in possession of 5 decimals of plot no. 738 and 740. Laxman Pandit died leaving behind four sons. In 1928 Birju being karta of the family took settlement of 6 decimals of plot no. 740 and thereby they became owner of 8 decimals of plot no. 738 and 740. The defendants have denied acquisition of land by Laxman Pandit and joint-ness of Manori Pandit. The defendant further denied the alleged construction over plot no. 740 which was said to be Parti land and there was no common passage adjacent south and west of plot no. 738. The defendant's further case is that the husband of the plaintiff Jaya Devi might have created a sale deed by impersonation and Jamabandi was created. The defendant further denied the alleged construction over plot no. 740 which was said to be Parti land and there was no common passage adjacent south and west of plot no. 738. The defendant's further case is that the husband of the plaintiff Jaya Devi might have created a sale deed by impersonation and Jamabandi was created. The defendant's further case is that on the basis of purchase they filed two mutation cases before Anchaladihkari which were numbered as Mutation case no. 124/86-87 and 125/86-87. The Anchaladhikari made local inspection and was pleased to cancel the Jamabandi of plaintiff and allowed the mutation case of defendant by his ORDER :dated 26.8.86. The area karamchari, Anchaladhikari, anchal amin and Circle Inspector found possession of the defendants over the purchased land and house. It is alleged that the plaintiff preferred mutation appeal no. 19/86-87 in the court of L.R.D.C. Lakhisarai which was dismissed. The plaintiff preferred mutation revision before the Additional Collector, Munger which is pending. The defendant claimed to have got a tube-well sunk on the suit premises and after obtaining proper permission from the municipality. The defendant's further case is that in a proceeding under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the parties were directed to get their title decided by the civil court of competent jurisdiction. The defendant denied to have dispossessed the plaintiff on 2.6.86. The defendant's further case is that after purchasing the suit property the defendant got a house plan sanctioned from the Municipality for construction of house on portion of plot no. 740 and constructed a septic latrine on a portion of plot no. 738 and also a brick built room thereon. They also alleged to have constructed boundary wall and their title and possession over the two plots are legal and valid. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the court below framed the following issues:- 1. Is suit framed maintainable ? 2. Is the suit barred by limitation, waiver, estoppel and acquiescence ? 3. Is suit barred under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act ? 4. Whether Manori and Birju acquired plot no. 740 jointly? 5. Was there any partition between ancestors of the vendors of plaintiff and defendants as claimed by them ? 6. Was the plaintiff dispossessed on 2.6.86 or within six months from the institution of the suit ? 7. Is suit barred under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act ? 4. Whether Manori and Birju acquired plot no. 740 jointly? 5. Was there any partition between ancestors of the vendors of plaintiff and defendants as claimed by them ? 6. Was the plaintiff dispossessed on 2.6.86 or within six months from the institution of the suit ? 7. Is the plaintiff entitled to any relief ? 5. The learned court below took up issue nos. 4 and 5 together and after considering the evidence adduced by the parties decided those issues in favour of the plaintiff. The court below came to a finding that the plaintiff did not purchase the northern most portion of the block as well as the southern most portion of the block so the claim of the defendants that they came in possession over the suit block in February and April 1986 does not appear to be reliable. The court below further held that the defendant cannot be held to be full-fledged owner with title of the suit property. So far the main issue no. 6 is concerned, the court below after considering the evidence came to a finding that the evidence on the point of dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit land is better and more reliable than that of the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants. The court below on the aforesaid finding held that the plaintiffs were dispossessed from the suit land on 2.6.86. Hence the suit was decreed. 6. Mr. Sidheshwari Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the correctness of the impugned JUDGMENT : and ORDER :as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel firstly submitted that the court below while deciding the suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act has no jurisdiction to decide title in a full-fledged manner and in fact the court below has virtually declared the title of the plaintiff over the suit property. Learned counsel further submitted that issue no. 5 and 6 relating to partition and respective title of the predecessor in interest of the parties have been conclusively gone into and adjudicated by the court below which was beyond the purview and scope of the suit. Learned counsel further submitted that issue no. 5 and 6 relating to partition and respective title of the predecessor in interest of the parties have been conclusively gone into and adjudicated by the court below which was beyond the purview and scope of the suit. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned court below totally discarded the reliable evidence adduced by the petitioner with regard to possession including the mutation ORDER :, sanction plan and other documents and has wrongly came to a finding that the evidence of dispossession adduced by the plaintiff is more reliable than that of the defendant learned counsel further submitted that in view of the previous litigation between the vendors of the parties and also between the plaintiff and the defendant the court below ought not to have entertained the suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act learned counsel lastly submitted that the court below committed grave error of law in inferring and presuming plaintiff's possession on the basis of finding on issue nos. 4 and 5. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties submitted that the court below has gone into the question of title incidentally and was conscious of the legal position that the court was not required to go into the title of the parties. Learned counsel further submitted that even assuming that the court below has gone into the title, any finding recorded in the said ORDER :will not operate as res judicata in view of section 6(4) of the Specific Relief Act. 8. Before appreciating the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I will first look into the scope and application of section 6 of the Specific Relief Act which reads as under:- "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. (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. (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." 9. From bare reading of the aforesaid provision it is manifest that this section provides a special summary and speedy remedy for a person in possession of immovable property whatever his title may be thereto to recover such possession from another who had illegally and without his consent ousted him from there. This has its origin in the proceeding called "interdict undivi" of the Roman Law, where a person wrongfully dispossesed by another could recover it back if he put forward his claim within a period of one year on the mere ground of his previous possession irrespective of defect in his title. The word 'possession' has not been defined under the Act. The term "possession" expresses the physical relation of control exercised by a - person over a thing. In other words, the continuing exercise of a claim to the exclusive use of thing constitutes the possession of it. According to Salmond's definition in ORDER :to constitute possession two elements are essential to be present, namely "Corpus possessionis" and "animus possidendi". It is, therefore, clear that a person who has been illegally dispossessed can recover possession under section 6 of the Act even against rightful owner of the property and the question of title of the property is irrelevant in such a suit. To prove his possession the plaintiff has to show that he was exercising acts of dominion over the property or over a part of it and such acts of dominion were calculated to exclude alien interference with the property. Section 6 cannot be invoked unless the plaintiff has been deprived of actual physical possession otherwise than in due course of law. For example:- Dispossession by reason of the ORDER :under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a valid ground in a suit under section 6 of the Act. Section 6 cannot be invoked unless the plaintiff has been deprived of actual physical possession otherwise than in due course of law. For example:- Dispossession by reason of the ORDER :under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a valid ground in a suit under section 6 of the Act. In a suit filed under section 6 of the Act the onus of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish that he was in possession and has been illegally dispossessed but where both parties have led evidence the question of burden of proof becomes immaterial. In such a case the court must be satisfied before passing a JUDGMENT : in favour of the plaintiff that he has established his possession over the suit property and further proved that he has been illegally dispossessed by the defendant. The only question in a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is therefore, whether dispossession had taken place within six months prior to the institution of suit and the question of title is irrelevant in such a suit. 10. As noticed above no appeal lies from a decision in a suit under section 6 of the aforesaid Act. However, this court may interfere with the decision in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The normal remedy of unsuccessful party in such a suit is to file a suit for declaration of title and possession. This Court can interfere with the JUDGMENT : and ORDER :in revision if finding of possession arrived at by the court is either perverse in law or is without any basis. 11. Now I shall proceed to analyse the finding arrived at by the court below in the light of the discussions made hereinabove and also meet the points raised by Mr. Sidheshwari Prasad Singh learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The main point raised by the learned counsel is that the court below while deciding the suit has in fact decided the title in a full fledged manner which is wholly without jurisdiction. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel. While deciding issue nos. 4 and 5 the court below was fully aware and conscious of the legal position that question of title was irrelevant in the suit. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel. While deciding issue nos. 4 and 5 the court below was fully aware and conscious of the legal position that question of title was irrelevant in the suit. From perusal of the JUDGMENT : it appears that in fact the court below has considered all the documentary evidence filed by the parties related to acquisition of the suit property only for the purpose of finding as to which party was in possession. The court below has categorically held that the court has to see the circumstances only to arrive at a conclusion as regards the story of partition as claimed by the parties. The court below further held that although both the parties have filed receipts and other papers in support of their title but the court is not required to give a finding on the title to the land of the parties and the question of title is of little importance for the purpose of this suit. In my opinion, therefore, the finding arrived at by the court below on issue nos. 4 and 5 cannot be said to be wholly without jurisdiction. Even assuming that the court below incidentally discussed the documents of title filed by the parties and arrived at certain findings then those findings will not in any way conclusively decide the question of title and the same will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit that may be filed by the petitioner for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The only question, therefore, remains for consideration is whether finding of possession arrived at by the court below is perverse in law. From perusal of the impugned JUDGMENT : it appears that the court below has taken pain to discuss each and every evidence both oral and documentary adduced by the parties and also discussed all the evidences minutely and came to finding that the evidence on possession and illegal dispossession adduced by the plaintiff/opposite party is more reliable and convincing. I do not find any grave error of law in the appreciation of evidence by the court below. I also do not find any cogent reason to disturb the finding arrived at on issue no. 6. I do not find any grave error of law in the appreciation of evidence by the court below. I also do not find any cogent reason to disturb the finding arrived at on issue no. 6. So far the finding on the question of title is concerned, I have already observed that such finding arrived at by the court below will not operate as res judicata and the defendant petitioner shall not be prejudiced by such finding in the event a regular suit is filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions and observations made above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the JUDGMENT : and ORDER :passed by the court below. There is no merit in this civil revision application which is accordingly dismissed.