JUDGMENT : 1. The suit filed by the petitioner herein, for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 came to be dismissed by the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ghatanji, vide its judgment and order dated 28.03.2014. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Brief facts of the revision are as follows: The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land bearing Gat No.29 admeasuring 1.21 HR situated at Zatala, Tah. Ghatanji. According to him, the said land was gifted to him by the Bhudan Yagna Mandal, Nagpur on 23.09.2001. Since then he was in possession of the said land and cultivating it. On 01.08.2005 the said land was again allotted to him by the said Mandal as per Patta No.340. It is the case of petitioner that, in order to ascertain the boundaries of the said suit, he tendered an application in Taluka Inspector of Land Records Office, Ghatanji. When the notices were issued to respondents, respondents tried to encroach on the said land. The petitioner brought the said fact to the knowledge of President of Tanta Mukti. On 14.01.2010, when the petitioner again went to the suit land for carrying out measurement, respondents obstructed him claiming that they were the owners of the suit land and their father has never gifted the said land to the Bhudan Yagna Mandal. As per the petitioner, on that very day the respondents forcibly dispossed him from the suit land. He immediately complained about the same to the President of Tanta Mukti. However, the President told him not to file any report and assured to settle the dispute. Hence, petitioner did not file any report. However on 03.04.2010, the President of Tanta Mukti, expressed his inability to settle the dispute. Hence, petitioner filed suit before the Trial Court under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, claiming possession of the suit land. 3. The suit came to be resisted by the respondents vide their written statement at Exh.10, contending inter alia that the entire Survey No.29 was their ancestral property owned by their grandfather who has partitioned it amongst his three sons, Achut, Babanrao and Deorao and the entry thereof was taken in mutation record on 25.06.1980. 3. The suit came to be resisted by the respondents vide their written statement at Exh.10, contending inter alia that the entire Survey No.29 was their ancestral property owned by their grandfather who has partitioned it amongst his three sons, Achut, Babanrao and Deorao and the entry thereof was taken in mutation record on 25.06.1980. Thereafter, on 25.09.2005 their father Deorao executed a will deed in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 3 bequeathing half share each in the entire Gat No.29, including the suit land, to respondent Nos.1 and 3. It was submitted that petitioner is not a landless person and hence, there was no question to award him any land under the Bhudan Yagna Act. It is further submitted that father of the petitioner has partitioned his ancestral land and out of the said land, four acres came to the share of the petitioner, which he sold to one Raju Jadhav. Hence, the claim of the petitioner that he has become owner and purchaser of the suit land, on the basis of the gift of the said land given to him by Bhudan Yagna Mandal, Nagpur is false and hence, his suit deserves to be dismissed with compensatory costs. 4. On these respective pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed necessary issues for its consideration at Exh.13. In support of his case petitioner examined himself and produced the Certificate issued by Bhudan Yagna Mandal, Nagpur (Exh.20) and 7/12 extract of the suit land (Exh.22). As against it, on behalf of the respondents, respondent No.1 examined himself and also led the evidence of two more witnesses to prove the will deed and the mutation entry. 5. On appreciation of this oral and documentary evidence produced on record by both the parties, learned Trial Court was pleased to hold that the petitioner has failed to prove his actual and physical possession over the suit land. Hence, his suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was not maintainable and accordingly dismissed it. 6. 5. On appreciation of this oral and documentary evidence produced on record by both the parties, learned Trial Court was pleased to hold that the petitioner has failed to prove his actual and physical possession over the suit land. Hence, his suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was not maintainable and accordingly dismissed it. 6. While challenging this judgment and order of the Trial Court, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has not only produced on record the certificate issued by Bhudan Yagna Mandal, Nagpur proving that the suit land was allotted and gifted to him in the year 2005, but he has also produced on record the 7/12 extract of the suit land to show that his name is appearing in the possession column of the said land since the year 2005-2006. According to learned counsel for petitioner, both these documents were more than sufficient on record to prove the possession of the petitioner, coupled with his oral evidence. It is submitted that the aspect of possession was the only important issue to be considered by the Trial Court and that aspect was sufficiently and adequately proved by the petitioner. The Trial Court has therefore, committed an error in dismissing the petitioner's suit. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court, by pointing out the various reasons given in the judgment. According to him, the petitioner has not come before the Court with clean hand and clear facts. Even the boundaries of the suit land are not tallying with the description given in the gift deed. In such circumstances, except for the entry of his name in the 7/12 extract, as there was no evidence at all to prove the physical and actual possession of the petitioner over the suit land, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit. 8. In the light of these submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and having regard to the scope of controversy involved in the suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the only issue which can arise for my consideration is whether the petitioner was in possession of the suit land on 14.01.2010 and he was forcibly dispossessed there from by the respondents? 9. 9. Needless to state that, this being a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, forcibly dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit land is the gravamen and the essential issue. In order to prove forcibly dispossession, the petitioner has to prove that he was actually put in possession of the suit land and thus he was in prior possession of the suit land. In this respect, no doubt the petitioner has produced on record the certificate issued by Bhudan Yagna Mandal, Nagpur Exh.20 to show that the suit land was gifted to him by the said Mandal. He has also produced on record 7/12 extract of the suit land to show that his name was entered on the basis of this certificate from 2005-2006 in possession column. However, that cannot be sufficient since no possession receipt executed by Bhudan Yagna Mandal proving that petitioner was actually putting physical possession of the suit land is produced on record. Moreover the entries in 7/12 extract of the suit land goes to show that the suit land was barren or uncultivated, even after the name of the petitioner appeared in the 7/12 extract of the land for continuous period from 2005-2006 till 2010. The entry of 'padit' or uncultivated is appearing in the 7/12 extract of the suit land. If at all the petitioner was landless and therefore, this land was allotted to him, then it is expected that he should be cultivating the same. However, as admitted by petitioner himself, he was cultivating the land of his brother Dilip, which is situated at village Pimpal. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly held that plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the suit land. 10. It is pertinent to note that except for the name of his entry in 7/12 extract and his oral testimony petitioner has not lead evidence of any adjacent occupant or any other witness like Circle Inspector to prove that he was in actual possession of the suit land. He has also not examined any witness, not even the President of Tanta Mukti to prove that on this particular day he was forcibly dispossessed from the suit land. He has also not examined any witness, not even the President of Tanta Mukti to prove that on this particular day he was forcibly dispossessed from the suit land. The evidence of the President of Tanta Mukti, as observed by the Trial Court was important and essential on this aspect as the suit is filed after three months from the alleged dispossession and there is no complaint filed during that period. If according to petitioner, on the assurance given by the President of Tanta Mukti that he will settled the dispute, petitioner remained silent, then the evidence of the President of Tanta Mukti was necessary to that effect. However, no such evidence is adduced on record. 11. Apart from these aspects of the case, which go to show that plaintiff failed to prove his actual possession and forcibly dispossession from the suit land, there are other aspects of the case also, which are rightly considered by the Trial Court, namely, according to petitioner, the land was first allotted to him in the year 2001, and thereafter the same land was allotted to him in the year 2001. However, petitioner has not produced on record the certificate of the allotment of the land in the year 2001. In the pherphar or 7/12 extract of the land also his name is not appearing from the year 2001 onwards, but it is appearing for the first time in the year 2005-2006. According to the pleadings in the plaint petitioner has stated that the same land was allotted to him in the year 2005. However in evidence before the Court, he has stated that the different land was allotted to him in the year 2005. Further the evidence on record shows that the southern side of the land of the respondent was given to Bhudan Yagna Mandal, Nagpur. However, as per the petitioner northern side of the land was given to said Mandal. Thus, the Trial Court has rightly held that the four boundaries mentioned by the petitioner during cross-examination do not match or tally with four boundaries of the suit land mentioned in Exh.20. 12. Thus, the petitioner is not consistent and there is variance in his pleading and in his evidence. Thus, the Trial Court has rightly held that the four boundaries mentioned by the petitioner during cross-examination do not match or tally with four boundaries of the suit land mentioned in Exh.20. 12. Thus, the petitioner is not consistent and there is variance in his pleading and in his evidence. He has also not adduced any evidence to prove his actual and physical possession in the suit land prior to the alleged dispossession and there is also no evidence to show that on that particular date i.e. within six months prior to filing of the suit he was forcibly dispossessed from the suit land by the respondents. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed his suit. 13. After all the proceedings under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act are summary in nature, which do not contemplate inquiry in the title. What is essential for plaintiff to prove is only the prior permission and forcibly dispossession. Hence, even assuming that by producing the certificate issued by Bhudan Yagna Mandal, petitioner has attempted to prove his title, as he failed to prove his prior possession and forcible dispossession, his remedy was not under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. He can still file a suit on the basis of the title to get possession, but so far as suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is concerned, it has to be held that the Trial Court has, after properly appreciating the entire evidence on record, rightly dismissed the same. The revision therefore, no holds merit. Hence, stands dismissed.