ORDER : K. Harilal, J. The petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 435/2007 on the files of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. The above O.S. was filed under S. 6 of the Specific Relief Act (for short 'the Act') alleging dispossession of the property from the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he obtained the plaint schedule property on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by the father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 4. By virtue of the Will, he is in exclusive possession of the said property and building therein. He further alleged that, on 8.2.2007, the defendants trespassed into one room and the charthu in the building situated in the plaint schedule property after breaking open the lock and occupying the same. With these allegations, he filed the suit and prayed for a decree directing the defendants to give vacant possession of the charthu and the room described in the schedule, remove their articles and if they do not surrender the vacant possession after removing their goods, he may be allowed to take possession of the same with the help of the police. A mandatory injunction directing the defendants to do as stated above and a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the other portion of the building in the plaint schedule property is also sought for. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the plaintiff has no exclusive right or possession over the said property and the said property originally belonged to Plakudiyil family. The plaintiff, defendants 1 to 4 and their sisters and their parents were in joint possession of the property as kudikidappukars under Plakudiyil family. On behalf of the plaintiff and defendants also, the father late Sri Kesavan got right of kudikidapu as the senior most member of the family consisting of his wife, Bhargavi and their children. The defendants disputed the genuineness of the Will contending that the deceased Kesavan has not executed such a Will in favour of the plaintiff and the Will is a fabricated document created by the plaintiff with a view to snatch away the plaint schedule property exclusively for himself. From 1981 onwards, Sri Kesavan was laid up due to various ailments and he had no mental capacity to understand things properly. Therefore, the alleged Will is the result of undue influence, coercion and misrepresentation. From 1981 onwards, Sri Kesavan was laid up due to various ailments and he had no mental capacity to understand things properly. Therefore, the alleged Will is the result of undue influence, coercion and misrepresentation. On the death of Sri Kesavan, the property devolved upon all the legal heirs and on the death of Bhargavi, the plaint schedule property further devolved upon the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 4, Ramani and Bindu, who are the children of the deceased Kesavan and Bhargavi. In short, the plaintiff and the defendants are the co-owners of the plaint schedule property and building thereon. The plaintiff is residing along with his family at Karingachira and not in the plaint schedule property. The lean to portion of the building with one room are under the occupation of the defendants 1 and 4 and their family. The remaining portion of the building was let out to one Thankamma. It is not correct to say that the plaintiff effected repairs and electrical wiring works in the lean-to portion recently. The said repair works were done by all the co-owners. They denied the contention that the 4th defendant demanded Rs.1,00,000/- and when the plaintiff rejected that demand, he was not happy with the plaintiff. They emphatically denied the contention that the 4th defendant colluded with other defendants and trespassed into the petition schedule building in the midnight of 8.2.2007. The further allegation that the defendants locked the door and illegally occupied the building is not correct. The complaint said to have been filed before the police is false which sans bona fides. There was no opportunity to dispossess the plaintiff as the plaintiff was not residing in the plaint schedule property and defendant Nos. 1 and 4 were in occupation of the plaint schedule property as co-owners of the property. 2. On the above pleadings, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined for the plaintiff and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked. 4th defendant was examined as DW 1 and Ext. B1 was marked for the defendants. Ext. C1 commission report and Ext. C1(a) rough sketch were marked as court exhibits. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Munsiff decreed the suit as prayed for. Feeling aggrieved, this Revision Petition is filed challenging the legality and propriety of the findings under which the suit has been decreed as prayed for. 3. Ext. C1 commission report and Ext. C1(a) rough sketch were marked as court exhibits. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Munsiff decreed the suit as prayed for. Feeling aggrieved, this Revision Petition is filed challenging the legality and propriety of the findings under which the suit has been decreed as prayed for. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners vehemently contended that the suit for recovery of possession under S. 6 of the Act is not maintainable against one co-owner by another co-owner as both are having equal right over the property, i.e., one co-owner cannot eject another co-owner. Therefore, no relief can be granted for recovery of possession from one co-owner and putting the other in possession. According to the learned counsel, there is no evidence to prove the exclusive right and possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. The defendants are also co-owners of the property and they can never be dispossessed by the plaintiff, unless his exclusive right and possession are proved beyond doubt by valid document which shows transfer of others' right. A co-owner is always presumed to be in joint possession of the property. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent advanced arguments to justify the findings of the court below under which the suit has been decreed. According to him, the learned Munsiff rightly appreciated the facts and evidence in its correct perspective and the plaintiff has succeeded in proving his exclusive possession over the plaint schedule property and building thereon and subsequently, he has been dispossessed within a period of six months before the date of filing the original suit. 5. Heard both sides and I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar. Firstly, the question that arises for consideration is, whether the suit under S. 6 of the Act, seeking recovery of possession of the immovable property filed by one co-owner against another co-owner is maintainable? 6. The statutory mandate under S. 6 of the Act is that, 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. 6. The statutory mandate under S. 6 of the Act is that, 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 purpose behind S. 6 of the Act is to restrain a person from using force and to dispossess a person without his consent, otherwise than in due course of law. It is also settled that title to the property is not at all a matter to be considered in such suit. 7. While analysing the above Section in the above context, emphasis must be given to the non-obstante clause, which reads that 'not with standing any other tide that may be set up in such suit". Put it simply, the question of title is irrelevant in a suit under S. 6 of the Act. In Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Naresh Narayan Roy (, AIR 1924 PC 144 ), the Privy Council observed that "In India persons are not permitted to take forcible possession; they must obtain such possession as they are entitled to through Court". In Abdul Rahiman v. Nalakath Muhammed Haji (, 1996 (2) KLT 185 ), this Court held that the question of title and nature of parties 'possession' are irrelevant in a suit filed under S. 6 of the Act. It is clear from the wordings of the above Section that above Section provides a summary cheap and useful remedy to person dispossessed of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law. The object of the Section is to discourage people from taking law into their own hands, however good their title may be. In Rosily v. Annam, ( 2003 (3) KLT 282 ), this Court again held that judicial authority is very strong in favour of the position that in suits instituted under S. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, question of title is wholly irrelevant, since such suits are tried summarily and the relief which the Courts are competent to grant under the said suits is one for recovery alone and not any other relief to grant, which question of title will crop up even incidentally. The Supreme Court in Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh (, AIR 1968 SC 620 ) has observed that in the context of S. 9 of the old Specific Relief Act, which corresponds to S. 6 of the present Act, it is well settled that question of title irrelevant is a suit filed under S. 6 of the above Act. 8. In Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Ventkat Rao ( AIR 1989 SC 2097 ), the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the dispossession of a licensee by the licenser, after the expiry of the period of licence. There, the Supreme Court held that:- "It is 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. This proposition was also accepted by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Rain 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". Thus, the legal position settled by the decisions referred above is that, remedies under S. 6 of the Act is available to the trespasser against true owner; licensee against licenser and tenant against landlord; in case of dispossession without consent of the former otherwise than in due course of law, by the latter. On the same view, based on the same principle that "No person can take law in his own hand, otherwise than in due course of law, however good his title may be", I have no hesitation to hold that such remedies under S. 6 of the Act are available to one co-owner or co-owners against another co-owner or co-owners, in case of forcible dispossession by the latter without consent of the former, otherwise than in due course of law. The actual possession over property under co-ownership may be either joint or exclusive. In the case of joint possession also, there have been cases, where one co-owner subsequently dispossesses all others and take exclusive possession forcibly. Similarly, in the case of exclusive possession of one co-owner also, others may dispossess him and take possession forcibly. In short, generally, it cannot be presumed that all the co-owners are always in actual possession of the property and forcible dispossession is an unlawful act that recurring among co-owners also. To sum up the co-owner, who dispossessed another co-owner, cannot seek exception under S. 6 of the Act, as the question of title is irrelevant in a proceeding under S. 6 of the Act. 9. Coming to the instant case, admittedly, the plaintiff and the defendants are the children of Sri Kesavan and Smt. Bhargavi. According to the plaintiff, Sri Kesavan executed a Will bequeathing his property in favour of him and after the death of Sri Kesavan, by virtue of the Will, he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, in exclusion of his siblings. At the same time, he contended that, he is residing at Karingachira in connection with his business. But, he is in occupation of the plaint schedule property as the absolute owner in possession of the plaint schedule property. It is also contended that the plaint schedule building, having eight rooms, was rented out to one Smt. Thankamma, the wife of PW 2 and Smt. Thankamma and her family are in occupation of the building except a lean-to portion and another room, under rental agreement. The lean-to portion and connected room are in exclusive possession of the plaintiff. He has made certain repair and connected works in the said lean-to portion and thereafter the room was in his exclusive possession under his lock and key. But on 08.02.2007, the defendants trespassed into the property and the 4th defendant started to reside in the said property in dispossession of the plaintiff. 10. Per contra, the contention of the defendants is that, the 1st and 4th defendants have been residing in the property from the period of their parents and even now they are residing in the lean-to portion and connected room as early and continuing so. 10. Per contra, the contention of the defendants is that, the 1st and 4th defendants have been residing in the property from the period of their parents and even now they are residing in the lean-to portion and connected room as early and continuing so. They also admitted that major portion of the building, except the lean-to portion and connected room are in possession and enjoyment of Smt. Thankamma and her family under a rental agreement. The defendants 1 and 4 have no case that they are residing in any place other than the plaint schedule building. The points to be considered are, (i) whether the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the building at the time of the alleged dispossession? (2) Whether the plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendants, otherwise than in due course of law (3) Whether the suit was instituted before the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession? To prove his exclusive possession over the plaint schedule property, though, he has relied on the Will said to have executed by his father and the same was produced before the court, the court below has not marked the said document as exhibit on a finding that the title to the property is irrelevant in a suit under S. 6 of the Act. But, the court below has marked Ext. A3 tax receipt in respect of the plaint schedule property issued by the Village Officer, Thiruvankulam. It could be reasonably presumed that the plaint schedule property has been mutated in the name of the plaintiff in accordance with the Transfer of Registry Rules, under the Will. It is pertinent to note that no question was put to P.W. 1 while he was in the box, challenging the genuineness of Ext. A4 tax receipt which shows his possession. The defendants also admitted that one Thankamma and her family are in possession of the plaint schedule property except the lean-to portion and another room under rental agreement. In view of the above admission, I find that P.W. 2, the husband of Thankamma, is the reliable witness to speak about the possession of the building. When P.W. 2 was cross-examined, no question was asked, challenging the rental agreement between the plaintiff and Thankamma as claimed by him in the original suit. In view of the above admission, I find that P.W. 2, the husband of Thankamma, is the reliable witness to speak about the possession of the building. When P.W. 2 was cross-examined, no question was asked, challenging the rental agreement between the plaintiff and Thankamma as claimed by him in the original suit. Thus, the legal possession of the plaintiff over the portion, where Thankamma and her family are in occupation, is not challenged by the plaintiff in his pleadings or evidence. 11. Coming to the evidence of P.W. 2, the defendants cannot be heard to dispute the status of P.W. 2 as tenant as they themselves admitted his status as tenant in the pleadings also. He has spoken to the rental agreement between him and the plaintiff. But the same was not sufficiently controverted by the defendants in their cross-examination. He has specifically stated that on 8.2.2007, while the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the lean-to portion and connected room, the 4th defendant trespassed into that portion after breaking open the lock and the same was informed to the plaintiff. His evidence as regards the alleged dispossession of the plaintiff is not successfully challenged in cross-examination. In short, I find that the evidence of P.W. 2 as regards the plaintiffs exclusive possession of the entire building and subsequent dispossession on 8.2.2007 is reliable as well as believable. 12. Coming to the positive evidence adduced by the plaintiff to disprove the claim of the 1st and 4th defendants that they have been residing in the plaint schedule property from the period of their parents and still continuing there, Exts. A4 and A5 certified copies of the voters' list of 2007 of Tripunithura Assembly Constituency, showing the names and addresses of the defendants are significant, as valid evidence disproving their claim. Exts. A4 and A5 show that defendants 1 and 4 are residing at different places other than plaint schedule building. Moreover, though they claimed that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property as co-owners and they are residing in the property from the period of their parents, no documentary evidence had been adduced to substantiate the said claim. Had they been residing continuously in the plaint schedule building, as they claimed, certainly they could have produced evidence to show the same. Had they been residing continuously in the plaint schedule building, as they claimed, certainly they could have produced evidence to show the same. But, no document had been produced and the absence of such evidence speaks volume, in view of Exts. A4 and A5 certified copies of voters' list which shows that they are residing in different places, other than the plaint schedule property. That apart, the absence of any evidence from the part of the defendants to prove their possession and the presence of strong evidence from the part of the plaintiff give rise to a strong inference of dispossession as alleged by the plaintiff. On an analysis of evidence, I find that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that he had been dispossessed within 6 months, i.e., on 8.2.2007, before filing the suit. There is no illegality or impropriety in any of the findings and I do not find any kind of perversity in the appreciation of evidence. Hence the Revision Petition is dismissed. Needless to say, as rightly observed by the learned Munsiff, the right of the defendants to prove that the Will is not a genuine one and they are also the co-owners of the property in a properly instituted suit is not at all taken away by the decree in this suit. The Revision Petition is dismissed.