Judgment :- 1. The above revision has been preferred by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 2.12.99 made in O.S. No.240/98 on the file of the first Additional District Munsif Court, Erode. This revision has been preferred under Section 115 of The Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 6 of The Specific Relief Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents. For convenience the parties will be referred as arrayed before the trial court. 3. The petitioners herein as plaintiffs instituted the suit O.S. No.240/98 under Section 6 of The Specific Relief Act, 1963 for recovery of possession and alleging that he has not been dispossessed with his consent otherwise than in due course of law. The petitioners claim that they were in possession and they are entitled to be in possession, but they have been forcefully dispossessed from the suit property otherwise than in due course of law and, therefore, they are entitled for recovery of possession. The summary remedy under Section 6 of The Specific Relief Act, 1963 has been resorted to by the petitioners/plaintiffs. 4. The summary remedy under Section 6 of The Specific Relief Act, 1963 has been resorted to by the petitioners/plaintiffs. 4. According to the plaintiffs, their father has been in possession as cultivating tenant of the suit property since 1969, that their father has also been registered as the cultivating tenant in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands (Record of Tenancy Rights) Act, in respect of suit lands that their father was in enjoyment till his death in July 1996, that a sum of Rs.1,500/= has been paid towards rent, that the plaintiffs have been assisting their father in the cultivation of the lands, that during April 1996 they have raised sugarcane and it was due for cutting during March/April 1998, that they have also planted coconut trees, that for the year 1997 rents have been paid, that the first defendant ignoring the rights of the plaintiffs has notified that the lands will be leased out by way of public auction, that the plaintiffs objected to the same, that the first defendant conferred right on the 4th defendant, that the defendants forcefully entered into possession of the suit property, destroyed the sugarcane crops, collected coconut from the two hundred coconut trees, that on 26.11.97 the plaintiffs have been forcefully dispossessed by use of force, that the auction, if any, will not take away the right of the plaintiffs, as the plaintiffs have been dispossessed forcefully they are entitled to be restored back to possession and hence the present suit. 5. The first defendant filed a written statement, which has been adopted by defendants 2 and 3. According to the first defendant, the suit claim is false, fictitious and it is not maintainable, that the suit properties is owned by the first defendant temple, that the first defendant was appointed as trustee for the first defendant temple, that the lands were lying fallow, that on 26.11.97 the right to cultivate the lands was auctioned in the public auction, that all the plaint averments are false, that the first defendant auctioned the rights of the lands in which the 4th defendant was the successful bidder, and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. 6. 6. The 4th defendant filed a separate written statement claiming that he has taken the land on lease in the public auction and remitted Rs.10,600/=, that the plaintiffs were not in possession and, therefore, they are not entitled to maintain the suit. 7. Defendants 2 and 3 filed separate written statements pleading that the said lands were lying fallow, that the first defendant through its trustee, auctioned the right to cultivate the lands in which the 4th defendant was the successful bidder for a period of one year, that the plaintiffs were not in possession, that the plaintiffs were never the lessees, that the plaintiffs claim that they have raised sugarcane is false, that the plaintiff has fabricated documents and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. 8. On the said pleadings the trial court framed the following three issues :- "i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession ? ii) Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property ? iii) To what relief, if any ?" 9. The plaintiffs marked Exs.A-1 to A-33, while the defendants marked Exs.B-1 to B-2. The plaintiffs examined three witnesses, while the defendants examined one witness. The trial court considered the issues one and two together. 10. The trial court recorded a finding that the plaintiffs father was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as cultivating tenant and he has been recorded as a cultivating tenant. The trial court also recorded a finding that the said tenancy has not been terminated nor been cancelled. The plaintiffs have already filed a suit for injunction forbearing the first respondent from auctioning the right to cultivate the lands and the said suit was pending on the material date. Despite that the first defendant proceeded and conducted the public auction. The trial court recorded a finding that after the plaintiffs father the plaintiffs are in legal possession, and they have raised sugarcane. The trial court also recorded a finding that the 4th defendant, at the instance of the first defendant by claiming to be the successful bidder in the public auction has the right to cultivate, forcefully entered, destroyed the standing sugarcane crops and thus unlawfully dispossessed the plaintiffs. 11. The trial court also recorded a finding that the 4th defendant, at the instance of the first defendant by claiming to be the successful bidder in the public auction has the right to cultivate, forcefully entered, destroyed the standing sugarcane crops and thus unlawfully dispossessed the plaintiffs. 11. It is rightly contended that having rendered such a finding, in a suit under Section 6 of The Specific Relief Act, the trial court ought to have granted a decree as prayed for. Instead the trial court went into the question whether the plaintiffs are cultivating tenants, whether they had assisted their father during his lifetime, whether they could claim themselves to be cultivating tenants, which are not relevant in a suit under Section 6 of The Specific Relief Act. It is argued that the trial court proceeded in a tangent and held that the plaintiffs have no right after the death of their father since they could not claim themselves to be cultivating tenant as defined under Section 2 (aa) of The Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act by personally cultivating the lands as they were employed in a sugar factory. 12. In the light of the above findings, the points that arise for consideration in this revision are :- "i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of recovery of possession? ii) Whether the court below acted with illegality in converting the summary suit as if a regular suit and refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it ? iii) To what relief, if any ?" 13. All the points could be considered together. The finding being the plaintiffs father during his life time was cultivating the said lands and, thereafter, the plaintiffs have raised crops and on the crucial date of their being dispossessed, there was standing sugarcane crop. The 4th defendant, who claim a right from the first defendant, forcefully dispossessed the plaintiffs and destroyed the sugarcane crops. Hence, the present suit. 14. The question whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim tenancy rights or whether could resist the auction by the first defendant is totally alien to the present suit. The learned District Munsif has misdirected himself in proceeding as if all these issues arise in the present summary suit. Hence, the present suit. 14. The question whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim tenancy rights or whether could resist the auction by the first defendant is totally alien to the present suit. The learned District Munsif has misdirected himself in proceeding as if all these issues arise in the present summary suit. Having rendered a finding that the plaintiffs have been forcefully and unlawfully dispossessed, in terms of Section 6 of The Specific Relief Act, the court below ought to have granted a decree as prayed for. The entire approach of the court below is a misconception and the plea, which are sought to be advanced by the defendants are alien to the scope of the very suit itself. 15. In law and in terms of Section 6 of The Specific Relief Act, when once it is found that the plaintiffs were in possession on the crucial date and they were dispossessed forcefully, in terms of Section 6 of The Specific Relief Act, the court below ought to have granted a decree as prayed for. It may be that when the first defendant or the 4th defendant institute a suit, the plaintiffs may or may not have a valid right to resist the claim, but that is not the test nor such a question arise in a suit under Section 6 of The Specific Relief Act. Whether the first defendant has lawfully conferred the right on the 4th defendant is also not a relevant question for consideration in the present suit. 16. When once the court below has recorded a finding that the plaintiffs were in possession, they have raised sugarcane crops and they have been forcefully and unlawfully dispossessed by the 4th defendant on the alleged rights conferred by the first defendant, it automatically follows and in law the plaintiffs are entitled for decree. All other issues, whether the plaintiffs are cultivating tenants, whether they are entitled to be in possession, whether they could get an injunction, whether they have any right or privilege, will not arise in the present suit instituted under Section 6 of The Specific Relief Act. All other issues, whether the plaintiffs are cultivating tenants, whether they are entitled to be in possession, whether they could get an injunction, whether they have any right or privilege, will not arise in the present suit instituted under Section 6 of The Specific Relief Act. When once a finding is recorded by the court below that the plaintiffs have been dispossessed from the suit property without their consent, otherwise then in due course of law, all the objections or defence pleas, which were sought to be advanced by the defendants are totally alien to such a suit. 17. The court below has allowed itself to be misled and had acted with illegality in proceeding as if the present case is a regular suit, while the suit has been instituted under Section 6 of The Specific Relief Act within the period of limitation prescribed in that behalf. When once finding has been recorded that the plaintiffs were dispossessed without their consent, otherwise then in due course of law, the court below should have granted a decree as prayed for against the defendants. It is also well settled that neither the first defendant nor the 4th defendant nor other defendants can dispossess the plaintiffs except by recourse to law. 18. In this respect, the attention of this court is drawn to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in KRISHNA RAM MAHALE VS. SHOBHA VENKAT RAO reported in AIR 1989 SC 2097 . The Supreme Court in the said pronouncement held thus :- "8. ..... It is a well-settled law in this country that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law. If any authority were needed for that proposition, we could refer to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh, (1968) 2 SCR 203 at pp. 208-210 : ( AIR 1968 SC 620 at pp. 622-23). This Court in that judgment cited with approval the well-known passage from the leading Privy Council case of Midnapur Zamindary Co. 208-210 : ( AIR 1968 SC 620 at pp. 622-23). This Court in that judgment cited with approval the well-known passage from the leading Privy Council case of Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Naresh Narayan Roy, 51 Ind App 293 at p.299 : (AIR 1924 PC 144) where it has been observed (p.208)(of SCR) : (at p.622 of AIR): "In India persons are not permitted to take forcible possession; they must obtain such possession as they are entitled to through a Court." 9. This proposition was also accepted by a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Rattan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1977) 2 SCR 232 : ( AIR 1977 SC 619 ). The Division Bench comprising of three learned Judges held that a true owner has every right to dispossess or throw out a trespasser while he is in the act or process of trespassing but this right is not available to the true owner if the trespasser has been successful in accomplishing his possession to the knowledge of the true owner. In such circumstances, the law requires that the true owner should dispossess the trespasser by taking recourse to the remedies under the law. In the present case, we may point out that there was no question of the plaintiff entering upon the premises as a trespasser at all, as she had entered into the possession of the restaurant business and the premises where it was conducted as a licensee and in due course of law. Thus, defendant No.3 was not entitled to dispossess the plaintiff unlawfully and behind her back as has been done by him in the present case. It was pointed out by Mr.Tarkunde that some of the observations referred to above were in connection with a suit filed under S.6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 or analogous provisions in the earlier Specific Relief Act, 1877." 19. In the light of the above pronouncement of the Supreme Court, all the points are answered in favour of the petitioners and this civil revision petition is allowed. The judgment and decree of the court below are set aside. The suit O.S. No.240 of 1998 is decreed as prayed for with costs. The parties shall bear their respective costs in this revision.