Judgment 1. This revision application has been filed by the petitioner – plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 14th October, 2004 passed by the 5th Joint C.J.J.D., Aurangabad in R.C.S. NO. 774/2003. 2. The revision petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) filed R.C.S. NO. 774 of 2003 before the Joint C.J.J.D., Aurangabad. The said suit was filed for recovery of possession of the shop-cum-room, of which description in detail has been given in paragraph 1 of the plaint. It is the contention o the petitioner that the petitioner was forcefully dispossessed from the suit premises. According to the petitioner, he had obtained plot on which the suit property is situated from the defendant on lease @ Rs.600/- per month since 9.9.1998 and constructed the structure thereon converting it into the shop and he was running a grocery shop under the name and style of “M/s Swati Kirana and General Store” since 27th September, 1999 and for construction of the premises, he incurred expenses of Rs.65,000/- and as per agreed terms, he has been paying the rent regularly up till September, 2003. It is his contention that the original defendant – respondent herein, in collusion with the relatives of the defendant, with an intention to evict the petitioner from the suit property, started extending threats to the plaintiff – petitioner to vacate the suit shop from 20th August, 2003. It is further case of the petitioner that he filed complaint before the Police Commissioner on 20th August, 2003 and also at Police Station, Cantonment, Aurangabad but, no action was taken on the said complaints. Finally on 7.10.2003 at about 9.30 a.m. whilst the plaintiff was present in the suit shop, the defendant with the aid of the police person and other relatives of the defendant started throwing the general and kirana goods on the street and locked the shop by defendant and dispossessed the plaintiff illegally from the suit property without following due course of law. Therefore, the petitioner filed civil suit with the following prayer: “The suit of the plaintiff may be decreed with costs and plaintiff be put in possession of the suit shop from the defendant and oblige/” According to the plaintiff / petitioner, the said suit was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. 3. The 5th Joint C.J.J.D., Aurangabad by judgment and order dated 14th October, 2004 dismissed the suit with costs. 3. The 5th Joint C.J.J.D., Aurangabad by judgment and order dated 14th October, 2004 dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, this civil revision application has been filed by the petitioner / plaintiff. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to paragraphs 1-(a), 1(b), 2, 3 and 4 of the revision memo and submitted that the revision petitioner and respondents are close relatives and respondent inducted the petitioner in possession on the oral tenancy basis on the suit land with the monthly rent of Rs.600/- from 9.9.1998. It is further submitted that the rent was paid till September, 2003. It is further submitted that the respondents have admitted that the petitioner is tenant and it is evident from the para 4 of the written statement of the respondent that “rent is not paid after 2001 by the revision petitioner.” It is further argued that the defendant is police constable and the same has been admitted in para no.7 of the written statement of the respondent. The learned Counsel invited my attention to the complaint (Exh.46) dated 20th August, 2003 to the Police Commissioner and submitted that since the respondent was giving threats to the petitioner asking him to vacate the suit premises, the said complaint came to be filed. In pursuant to the strained relations, the respondent was abusing his position in police department and certain other persons forcefully dispossessed the petitioner from the suit premises and he forcibly locked the suit premises. It is further submitted that on 7.10.2003 i.e. on the date of the incident itself, the petitioner had filed complaint with the police station and the panchanama vide Exh.33 was completed in between 3.30 to 4.30 p.m. whereas, the complaint which had been received on 7.10.2003 has been exhibited at Exh.39. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, P.W.4 Dhanraj Namdeo Pawar, police constable, Police Station, Chhawani deposed that the police station officer received the complaint on 7.10.2003 for investigation. The said deposition remained unchallenged by the defendant in cross-examination. The learned Counsel further submitted that the contention of the respondent that the petitioner vacated the premises voluntarily and no taba pawati or panchanama were done in the said matter, is required to be rejected. The said deposition remained unchallenged by the defendant in cross-examination. The learned Counsel further submitted that the contention of the respondent that the petitioner vacated the premises voluntarily and no taba pawati or panchanama were done in the said matter, is required to be rejected. It is further submitted that under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 what is required to inquire by summary proceeding is whether the person is dispossessed without his consent of the immovable property otherwise than in due course of law. There is no appeal and review permitted against the decision of the trial Court and the revision is not prohibited by the legislation after the disposal of the suit in trial Court. It is further submitted that the trial Court committed material irregularities and also exceeded its jurisdiction while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff / petitioner. The trial Court while admitting on record that there is complaint dated 7th October, 2003, misguided itself that no complaint was filed by the revision petitioner on 7.10.2003 and the said finding is perverse and required to be interfered with. The further observations of the trial Court that the articles which have been thrown out from the shop, are not thrown but kept to display in the shop is also perverse finding. It is the case of the petitioner that while forcefully dispossessing the petitioner, the shop was locked by the respondent at 9 a.m. and in ordinary course of business no shopkeeper will display the goods on the road out side the shop and nobody would invite the panchanama for displaying the thrown article. The fact that in pursuance of the complaint on 7.10.2003, the panchanama was drawn itself shows that there was no consent for vacating the premises. The trial Court ought to have held that there is no Taba Pawati / possession receipt produced by the defence to substantiate the contention that the petitioner has voluntarily given possession of the suit premises to the respondent. In certain circumstances of the case when the relations are strained, the better and most reliable evidence would be to execute documentary evidence of possession of the suit premises. In absence of documentary evidence of the receipt of possession, it is clear case of the adverse inference against the defendant and it is confirmed that forcefully petitioner has been dispossessed on 7.10.2003. In absence of documentary evidence of the receipt of possession, it is clear case of the adverse inference against the defendant and it is confirmed that forcefully petitioner has been dispossessed on 7.10.2003. The learned Counsel, in support of his contention, placed heavy reliance on the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in case of S.R. Ejaz v. The Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd., reported in AIR 2002 SC 1152 and submitted that the Supreme Court has clearly opined the nature of evidence required in such a case. The facts were eloquent and no further evidence was necessary not anything was required to be re-appreciated. It is to be stated that admittedly there is no document to indicate that petitioner willingly handed over the possession of the suit premises. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, if the petitioner had willingly handed over the possession, he would not have immediately lodged the criminal complaint and made representation to the higher authorities for taking action nor he would have filed a writ petition for appropriate directions. The learned Counsel further submitted that in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the civil revision application deserves to be allowed. He further invited my attention to the pleadings in the plaint, the impugned judgment and order, and other documents on the record and submitted that the trial Court has traveled beyond the prayers and pleadings and the issue fallen for consideration and thereby recorded the findings which were unwarranted and also some of the findings are perverse and contrary to the record. The trial Court has committed irregularity and exceeded its jurisdiction while entertaining the suit. He, therefore, submitted that the civil revision application deserves to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent / defendant submitted that it is the plaintiff who has claimed ownership of the construction, though he has admitted ownership of the defendant over the land. He, therefore, submitted that the civil revision application deserves to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent / defendant submitted that it is the plaintiff who has claimed ownership of the construction, though he has admitted ownership of the defendant over the land. The Counsel for respondent invited my attention to the paragraphs 3 to 6 of the plaint and submitted that such a claim is beyond the scope of section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and, therefore, the plaintiff has prayed and pleaded beyond the scope of section 6 of the said Act and the Court being a competent court to try other issues, was not left with any alternative but to give findings on the issues raised by the petitioner and, therefore, the stand of the petitioner that the trial Court has travelled beyond the scope and pleadings is required to be rejected. The petitioner has failed to prove the contents and execution of the complaint dated 20.8.2003 and has led contrary evidence, showing the complaint was made on 7.10.2003. There is no averment in the plaint that, on 7.10.2003, complaint was filed. The learned Counsel invited my attention to the written statement filed by the defendant and submitted that the defendant has specifically denied the forceful dispossession. It has been stated in the written statement that as the defendant was in arrears of rent and as the parties are relatives, it was mutually agreed that the plaintiff would vacate the premises and defendant would not claim any rent. It is pertinent to note that the parties to the proceeding are relatives. Even, as per the plaint there is no written agreement of tenancy, no rent receipts are on record so as to establish payment of the rent. The fact that rent was not paid and it was mutually agreed to relinquish the possession and arrears of rent has been stated. The petitioner has not established payment of rent on record. The learned Counsel invited my attention to the evidence of P.W.1 Ramesh s/o Madhavrao Shelke and submitted that the petitioner has admitted that the defendant is owner of the suit premises. Though the petitioner has claimed ownership of construction, no evidence in that regard was produced on the record. The petitioner has not established payment of rent on record. The learned Counsel invited my attention to the evidence of P.W.1 Ramesh s/o Madhavrao Shelke and submitted that the petitioner has admitted that the defendant is owner of the suit premises. Though the petitioner has claimed ownership of construction, no evidence in that regard was produced on the record. If the petitioner claims or desires to claim ownership, he is at liberty to file separate suit for establishing title, if so advised, in view of section 6(4) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In para 6 of the revision application, though it is stated that the complaint was made on 20.8.2003 to Chhawani Police Station, however, in plaint it is stated that it was also made to the Commissioner. But, the same is not established on record. In cross-examination, P.W.1 has admitted that the parties are relatives. The ownership of construction is further agitated. However, the same is beyond the scope of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The learned Counsel further invited my attention to the evidence of P.W.4 Dhanraj Namdeo Pawar. According to the learned Counsel for respondent, this witness has proved the panchanama (Exh.35). In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he did not find any damages to the articles of the complainant as alleged by him. He further deposed that he did not find truth in the allegations of the complainant in the complaint dated 7.10.2003. He further invited my attention to the evidence of P.W.5 Kacharu Chavan and P.W.6 Kailas Khambat. It is stated that the plaintiff’s witness Kacharu Ambadas Thorat stepped in the witness box and he has stated that, on 20.8.2003 no complaint was filed by the plaintiff in the police station. He further admitted that as the said document was not there, the same could not be produced. The learned Counsel also invited my attention to the evidence of P.W.8 Digambar Shamrao Pagare and submitted that this witness stated that the original of complaint dated 20.8.2003 was not found. Digambar stated that only the receipt of the same i.e. endorsement was identified and it was the same endorsement which was exhibited. The learned Counsel further invited my attention to the witnesses of the defendant and submitted that they have established that the possession was voluntarily delivered. Digambar stated that only the receipt of the same i.e. endorsement was identified and it was the same endorsement which was exhibited. The learned Counsel further invited my attention to the witnesses of the defendant and submitted that they have established that the possession was voluntarily delivered. The learned Counsel further invited my attention to alleged complaints at Exh.33 and 46, panchanama below Exh.35 and submitted that these documents have been considered properly by the trial Court and the Court has arrived at the correct conclusion. The learned Counsel referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.R. Ejaz (supra), submitted that there are distinguishable factors in the case in hand and in that case. In the case of S.R. Ejaz (supra), the parties were not relatives, as is the case in the present case. There the proceedings for eviction were lodged and the evidence was collected. Even writ petition was filed before the High Court seeking directions for enquiry. In the present case, no criminal case is pending. No record was produced before the trial Court, regarding such complaint. In that case, plea of surrender on one hand and relinquishment of right to claim arrears of rent was not taken and established on record, as is done in the present case. In the said case, on considering the facts and circumstances of case, the High Court has quashed impugned order and remitted the proceedings back to the trial Court. It is further submitted that it is settled position of law that it is the plaintiff who has to prove his case as per his evidence. He cannot rely upon the alleged weakness in the defence. Here the plaintiff himself has failed to prove the forceful dispossession. The learned Counsel invited my attention to para 4 of the reported judgment in the case of Ramdas vs. Salim Ahmed, reported in 1998(9) SCC 719 . He further submitted that the trial Court had the advantage to see the conduct of the witnesses and normally even the Court of Appeal would not interfere in the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is further limited. He placed reliance on the reported judgment in the case of Madhusudandas Vs. He further submitted that the trial Court had the advantage to see the conduct of the witnesses and normally even the Court of Appeal would not interfere in the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is further limited. He placed reliance on the reported judgment in the case of Madhusudandas Vs. Narayanibai & others, reported in 1983 Mh.L.J. 402, wherein it is held that if there is a conflict of oral evidence on the matter in issue and its resolution turns upon the credibility of the witnesses, the general rule is that, the appellate Court should permit the finding of fact of the trial Court to prevail. The learned Counsel in order to support his contention that there is very limited scope for exercising revisional jurisdiction, relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court. He invited my attention to the observations of the Apex Court in case of Madhusudandas (supra) that, `the High Court should also have reminded itself that the witnesses had given their evidence before the trial court which had the opportunity of seeing their demeanour in the witness box and the appreciation of their evidence by the trial court had to be given due consideration in the light of that fact.’ The learned Counsel invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramdas (supra) and more particularly, para 4 of the said judgment. The learned Counsel for the respondent, therefore, would submit that once the finding of fact is recorded by the Court below that there is no forceful dispossession of the petitioner, this Court may not interfere in revisional jurisdiction in the findings of fact arrived at by the Court below. 6. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the entire record made available and also the civil revision application, annexures thereto and various judgments cited on behalf of the parties. 7. At the outset, it would be relevant to refer some of the findings of facts recorded by the trial Court. In para 4, trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration / determination: “ISSUES FINDINGS. I. Whether defendant proves the surrender of possession and tenancy right by plaintiff in his favour? In affirmative. II. 7. At the outset, it would be relevant to refer some of the findings of facts recorded by the trial Court. In para 4, trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration / determination: “ISSUES FINDINGS. I. Whether defendant proves the surrender of possession and tenancy right by plaintiff in his favour? In affirmative. II. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has been illegally dispossessed by the defendant? In negative. III. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession? In negative. IV. What order and decree? Suit is dismissed.” While answering Issue No.I, the trial Court held that the defendant proves surrender of possession and tenancy rights by the plaintiff in his favour. While answering Issues No.II & III, the Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that he has been illegally dispossessed by the defendant and plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of possession. In para 7, the trial Court has recorded admitted facts; firstly, the plaintiff and defendant are relatives; secondly, description of the suit property, boundaries and area thereof are not disputed by both parties; thirdly, the existence of tenancy between plaintiff and landlord and defendant qua-tenant in the suit property as plaintiff in his examination-in-chief has deposed that he is doing business in the shop which is owned by the defendant. Therefore, the petitioner – plaintiff has admitted ownership of the defendant over the suit property. In para 7, the Court has reached to the conclusion that the petitioner – plaintiff was monthly tenant of defendant in suit property @ Rs.600/- per month. In the same para, the Court has also reached to the conclusion that the agreement of tenancy between plaintiff and defendant was an oral one. The trial Court has referred to Exhs.36, 39, 20 and reached to the conclusion that the defendant has never issued any rent receipt at all at any point of time in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court has observed that the contention of the defendant that there was mutual confidence and trust and everything between the parties to the suit being oral one and without complaint until the alleged suit incident dated 7.10.2003. The trial Court has observed that the contention of the defendant that there was mutual confidence and trust and everything between the parties to the suit being oral one and without complaint until the alleged suit incident dated 7.10.2003. In such circumstances, the trial Court agreed with the defence submission that the facts and circumstances are to be viewed with preponderance of probability as it is a civil dispute and not for strict proof as all the conduct of plaintiff supports the defence theory. The trial Court, in para 8 has dealt with Issues No.I and II after appreciating the evidence brought on record by the respective parties. The trial Court has referred the evidence of plaintiff and observed that in the deposition of plaintiff he has added name of other persons along with defendant and also referred to the assault by the defendant and others to him. However, he has not stated that the defendant / accompanying persons had put lock to his said shop, though he has stated in his plaint. The trial Court has also taken note that no where in the plaint the plaintiff has mentioned that he lodged complaint on 7.10.2003 itself. The trial Court has referred to the evidence of P.W.4 Dhanraj from Chhawani Police Station, who has deposed about receiving the complaint of the petitioner on 7.10.2003. He in his evidence has stated that he visited the spot and drew spot panchanama in the presence of two panchas i.e. Eknath Dnyandeo Wakhare and Shivaji Gire. However, the panchanama prepared by the P.W.4 in presence of two panchas, does not support the case of the plaintiff that the articles from the shop were thrown out by the defendant and other persons. The defence examined panch witness namely Eknath who stated that the plaintiff voluntarily removed all articles and put the defendant in possession of the suit shop. The trial Court has extracted the passage from the evidence of defence witness Eknath Dnyandeo Wakhare D.W.2. He has fully supported the case of the defendant that the plaintiff has voluntarily removed his own articles from the grocery shop and kept outside, waited for transportation and thus, voluntarily handed over possession of the suit premises because of his inability to pay rent since January, 2002. The trial Court has observed that the evidence of D.W.2 remained un-shattered, both in his cross-examination and that of defendant as well. The trial Court has observed that the evidence of D.W.2 remained un-shattered, both in his cross-examination and that of defendant as well. The Court has also observed about the evidence of D.W.3 Santosh Paraji Lokhande, who has stated,” I have correctly stated in my affidavit (Ex.18) that on 7/10/2003 plaintiff told to the defendant that he is in arrears of rent and could not pay it. Not true to say that myself and defendant have forcibly dispossessed the suit property by throwing plaintiff’s articles outside it. Not true to say that out of friendly relations I helped defendant for illegally dispossessing the plaintiff from suit property.” The trial Court has also referred to the evidence of other witnesses. The trial Court, while appreciating the arguments of the Counsel for the defence, observed that the case in hand is required to be considered from the angle that the parties were relatives, tenancy was oral, payment of rent oral, mutual confidence and trust, there was no rule of law, or a straight jacket formula that pavti/possession was just and necessary to be executed, and therefore, this case stands on different footings than the cases in which there is a written agreement, rent is paid and receipts are given. The trial Court, ultimately, reached to the conclusion that D.W.2 Eknath Dnyandeo Vakhre and D.W.3 Santosh Paraji Lokhande reside and carry business in same suit locality and their presence in said locality is very natural, probable and trustworthy and knowing both plaintiff and defendant (all traders are of same community), have not supported the case of the plaintiff and deposed in favour of the defendant. They are independent witnesses of the locality whose presence is very natural, probable and proved, whereas, P.W.4 Dhanraj who is witness of plaintiff has not brought anything on record to show that D.Ws.2 and 3 are not trustworthy witnesses. The trial Court has also referred to the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the P.W.4 Dhanraj and observed that in his examination-in-chief (Exh.32), page 1, last two lines, he deposed, “I had observed the spot of the incident as well as place surrounding to the place of incident and also interrogated the neighbourer of the place of the incident.” In his cross-examination Exh.32, page 2, para no.2, admitted that, “I did not find truth in the allegations of the complainant (here present plaintiff) as alleged by him. I did not find any truth in the allegations of the complaint in the complaint dtd. 7-10-2003.” P.W.4 was witness called by the plaintiff and hence his evidence has to be acted and relied upon since the report / complaint was lodged with him at Exh.33 and recording of spot panchanama was done by him. 8. The relevant facts, which are required to be mentioned, are that the plaintiff has pleaded and tried to establish that the ownership of the construction lies with him. However, he has not produced any evidence on record and it was not within the scope of section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. On perusal of the entire material on record, it clearly emerges that the parties are relatives, there is no written agreement of tenancy, no written rent receipts. It also emerges from the judgment of the trial Court and from the evidence brought on record that the plaintiff has failed to prove his complaint dated 20th August, 2003 which he claims to have been filed with the Commissioner of Police. It further emerges that the plaintiff has failed to prove forcible dispossession through witnesses, panchanama or any other evidence. The trial Court, after appreciating the entire evidence brought on record, has reached to the findings of fact that there was no forcible dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit premises by the respondent and other persons. As discussed herein above, the trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence of the witnesses of both sides and found that the P.W.4 who was examined on behalf of the plaintiff did not support the case of the plaintiff, inasmuch as, while recording the panchanama the P.W.4 has categorically stated that he did not find that the articles from the suit shop were forcibly thrown out. Rather, those were displayed outside the shop properly. The D.Ws.2 and 3, who are panch witnesses and natural witnesses at the spot since they are from the same vicinity, have deposed against the plaintiff. Therefore, the trial Court, after framing necessary issues, has reached to definite finding of fact that there was no forcible dispossession of the plaintiff by respondent and others, as alleged by the plaintiff. 9. The D.Ws.2 and 3, who are panch witnesses and natural witnesses at the spot since they are from the same vicinity, have deposed against the plaintiff. Therefore, the trial Court, after framing necessary issues, has reached to definite finding of fact that there was no forcible dispossession of the plaintiff by respondent and others, as alleged by the plaintiff. 9. As far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court has travelled beyond the issue involved in the suit is concerned, on perusal of the pleadings in the plaint, it appears that the plaintiff claimed that he is owner of the suit premises since he has spent money for construction of the suit premises. Therefore, the plaintiff has invited the findings on the said issues and for that, he cannot blame the defendant or the court. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court has to keep in mind the scope of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In case of M.L. Sethi v/s Shri R.P. Kapoor, reported in A.I.R. 1972 SC 2379, the Supreme Court has observed that even gross errors of facts and law cannot be gone into in revisional jurisdiction. Yet, in another judgment in case of DLF Housing & Constructions Co. (P) Ltd. v/s Saroopsing and others, reported in AIR 1971 SC 2324 , the Supreme Court held that while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, it is not competent to the High Court to correct errors of fact however gross or even errors of law unless the errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. Yet in another judgment in the case of Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Balanagar Hyderabad and another v/s Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase and Stores) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Balanagar Hyderabad, reported in AIR 1973 SC 76 , the Honourable Supreme Court held that revisional Court can only see whether the Court below had jurisdiction. If it had jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings, the High Court cannot interfere. In the case of Harishankar and others vs. Rao Giridhari Lal Chowdhary, reported in AIR 1963 SC 698 , the Supreme Court has distinguished between right of appeal and right of revision and held that, scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited. If it had jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings, the High Court cannot interfere. In the case of Harishankar and others vs. Rao Giridhari Lal Chowdhary, reported in AIR 1963 SC 698 , the Supreme Court has distinguished between right of appeal and right of revision and held that, scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited. Yet in another judgment in the case of Faijulbee Hajeel & others vs. Yadali Amir Shaikh Ansari, reported in 1984(2) Bom.C.R. 253 , the Division Bench of this Court held that the decision on question of facts is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. In the judgment in case of Sanjay Kumar Pandey and others v/s Gulabhar Sheikh and others, reported in AIR 2004 SC 3354 , the Supreme Court held that the revisional court cannot refer to part of the evidence and reverse the findings of the fact. In paragraphs 4 and 5, the Court has clarified that the revisional jurisdiction would be exercised in exceptional circumstances and normally the party should file independent suit to establish title. 10. In the important judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Madhusudandas (supra), in para 18, it is observed, thus: “18 The High Court disagreed with the trial court and held that the adoption had not been established. In doing so, it adopted an approach which, to our mind, is plainly erroneous. It proceeded to judge the credibility of the witnesses mainly with reference to their relationship with the parties without placing adequate weight on the nature of the evidence and the probability of its truth in the context of the surrounding circumstances. It rejected the testimony of the appellant's witnesses substantially on the ground that they were related to the appellant or out of favour with Narsinghdas. This consideration, in our opinion, cannot by itself constitute a sufficient basis for discrediting the witnesses. We think the proper rule to be that when a witness holds a position of relationship favouring the party producing him or of possible prejudice against the contesting party, it is incumbent on the court to exercise appropriate caution when appraising his evidence and to examine its probative value with reference to the entire mosaic of facts appearing from the record. It is not open to the court to reject the evidence without anything more on the mere ground of relationship or favour or possible prejudice. It is not open to the court to reject the evidence without anything more on the mere ground of relationship or favour or possible prejudice. The judgment under appeal indicates that the High Court commenced with that mistaken approach, and we see its influence working throughout its appraisal of the testimony of the several witnesses. It is only logical that with its approach so oriented even the most 862 significant material adduced by the appellant should, in the eyes of the High Court, take on a negative hue. The High Court should also have reminded itself that these same witnesses had given their evidence before the trial court, which had the opportunity of seeing their demeanour in the witness box, and the appreciation of their evidence by the trial court should have been given due consideration in the light of that fact.” 11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in case of S.R. Ejaz v. The Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd., reported in AIR 2002 SC 1152 . According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, since there was a forceful dispossession of the plaintiff and on the very same day i.e. on 7.10.2003 he did file complaint with the Police authorities, that itself was sufficient to hold that there was forceful dispossession of the plaintiff. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, if there is a case of voluntary handing over possession of the premises by the plaintiff to the defendant, there is no question of filing complaint immediately on the very same day, stating therein the forceful dispossession of the plaintiff by the defendant. Therefore, relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in case of S.R. Ejaz (supra), the Counsel for the petitioner was at pains to argue that the civil revision application deserves to be allowed and the case of the plaintiff that there was forceful dispossession of the plaintiff by the defendant is required to be accepted. According to him, the scope of section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is limited, the Court has to look into whether there was forceful dispossession or not, relying on the evidence brought before it. According to him, the scope of section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is limited, the Court has to look into whether there was forceful dispossession or not, relying on the evidence brought before it. In the instant case, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, complaint was lodged with the police on the very same day and, there was no receipt produced by the defendant on record that the plaintiff has handed over possession voluntarily to the defendant and to that effect, there is no document in writing. The distinguishing factors in the case S.R. Ejaz (supra) and the case in hand are required to be mentioned at this stage. It is an admitted position that in the present case parties are relatives unlike in the case cited supra. In that case, the proceedings for eviction were pending before the competent court and the landlord tried to dispossess the tenant by forceful means. In that case, criminal proceedings were lodged and evidence was also collected. Even writ petition was filed seeking enquiry. In the instant case, there are no any criminal proceedings lodged by the plaintiff before the competent court or there is no directions seeking enquiry. In the present case, admittedly, there is no document showing agreement between the parties, document showing fixed rent per month, rent receipts issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. In absence of any documentary proof and everything being on oral understanding as understood by the parties and accepted by the trial Court that there was oral tenancy, there is force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the defendant as to why there cannot be voluntary handing over of possession by the plaintiff to the defendant without having the same thing in writing. This contention of the defendant has been accepted by the trial Court. As stated herein above while exercising revisional jurisdiction, the scope is very limited and once the finding of fact is recorded by the trial Court that there was no forceful dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit premises by the defendant and rather, there was voluntary handing over possession by the plaintiff to the defendant and in absence of anything brought to the notice of this court that this finding recorded by the trial Court is perverse, in my opinion, interference in the revisional jurisdiction is not permissible. The trial Court has dealt with in detail, referred extensively to the evidence of plaintiff’s witnesses, panch witnesses and defence witnesses. The trial Court has minutely scanned the evidence and has reached to the definite finding of fact. It is also relevant to mention that the plaintiff and defendant are relatives. Admittedly, the property belongs to defendant – present respondent. Therefore, in my considered opinion, in the revisional jurisdiction, no interference is warranted. 12. In the result, civil revision application stands rejected. Civil Application, if any, also stands rejected.