ORDER : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 11.05.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D), Jodhpur Metropolitan No. 3 passed in Civil Suit No. 109/2001 whereby, the suit filed by the petitioner for possession and recovery of mesne profit has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit against the respondents for possession of Plot No.105 situated at Chopasani Road, Kachhi Basti, Jodhpur so also seeking mesne profits under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. 3. Upon service of notice, the respondents filed written statement and denied the facts stated in the suit. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed as many as five issues. The plaintiff and the defendants produced their respective evidence and also exhibited various documents. 4. The trial court after taking into consideration the arguments of both the parties, dismissed the suit by way of judgment and decree dated 11.05.2011. Hence, this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned trial court has committed grave error of law in passing the judgment impugned as it disbelieved the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner and instead relied on the testimony of two interested witnesses i.e. DW2 and DW3 produced by the respondents. It was further argued that the lower court relied on a survey report that does not bear the date of survey, plot number or accurate size/area of the property mentioned. The counsel stressed upon the error committed by the learned trial court by stating that the present petitioner was entitled to mesne profits for illegal use and occupation of the property by the respondents. It was further submitted that all the documents produced by the petitioner (Ex.1 to Ex.4) were proved except for Ex.5 i.e. the allotment letter dated 20.05.1980 being inadmissible in evidence as the same was held to be not registered in accordance with provision of Section 17(1)(b) and Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Thus, the impugned order dated 11.05.2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D), Jodhpur Metropolitan No. 3 has caused serious miscarriage of justice and irreparable loss to the petitioner which deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Thus, the impugned order dated 11.05.2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D), Jodhpur Metropolitan No. 3 has caused serious miscarriage of justice and irreparable loss to the petitioner which deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that in order to reap the benefits of the relief provided under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “SRA”), the essential ingredients provided under the relevant Section need to be fulfilled. The petitioner in order to support his suit did not produce any concrete witnesses and relevant documents. It is further argued that PW1 Abu Khan (present petitioner) during his cross examination had stated that he used to live at another location situated at Siwanchi Gate, Jodhpur which goes on to show that he did not have possession over the disputed property. So far as grant of mesne profits is concerned, it is well settled that in a suit under Section 6 of SRA, mesne profits cannot be granted. It is further argued that the defendants had produced witnesses and documents viz. allotment letter, survey report etc. which categorically prove that the defendant is in possession of the suit property which was renumbered as Plot No.69 from Plot No.105 after survey. Thus, the suit is one and not different properties. The counsel placed reliance on the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Pandey vs. Gulbahar Sheikh 2004 (SC) 399, Bhanwaru Khan @ Rashul Khan vs. Mumtaj 2013 (Raj) 1146 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court and Laxman Singh & Anr. Vs. Kan Singh & Ors. 2001 (Raj) 1304 passed by Rajasthan High Court. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial court is valid, legal and in line with the provisions of law. 7. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and perused the material available on record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed the suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits, therefore, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant provision i.e. Section 6 SRA under which the petitioner filed the suit. Section 6 of SRA reads as under : “6. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed the suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits, therefore, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant provision i.e. Section 6 SRA under which the petitioner filed the suit. Section 6 of SRA reads as under : “6. 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 [through whom he has been in possession 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. (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. Section 6 of the SRA, is a crucial legal provision that safeguards the rights of individuals against unlawful dispossession of immovable property. It emphasizes the importance of possession over title and provides a swift mechanism for recovery, with strict limitations on the time frame for filing suits and the prohibition of appeals. It emphasizes on the importance of acting quickly within the six-months window to reclaim possession and the nature of the summary proceedings involved. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of I.T.C. Limited vs. Adarsh Coop. Housing Soc. LTD. (2012 (6) SC 247) has laid down the following proposition : “6. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 under which provision of law the suit in question was filed by the plaintiff-respondent is pari-materia with Section 9 of the Act of 1877. A bare reading of the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Act of 1963 would go to show that a person who has been illegally dispossessed of his immovable property may himself or through any person claiming through him recover such possession by filing a suit. A bare reading of the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Act of 1963 would go to show that a person who has been illegally dispossessed of his immovable property may himself or through any person claiming through him recover such possession by filing a suit. In such a suit, the entitlement of the plaintiff to recover possession of property from which he claims to have been illegally dispossessed has to be adjudicated independently of the question of title that may be set up by the defendant in such a suit. In fact, in a suit under Section 6, the only question that has to be determined by the Court is whether the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed property and he had been illegally dispossessed therefrom on any date within six months prior to the filing of the suit. This is because Section 6(2) prescribes a period of six months from the date of dispossession as the outer limit for filing of a suit. As the question of possession and illegal dispossession therefrom is the only issue germane to a suit under Section 6, a proceeding thereunder, naturally, would partake the character of a summary proceeding against which the remedy by way of appeal or review has been specifically excluded by sub-Section 3 of Section 6. Sub-Section 4 also makes it clear that an unsuccessful litigant in a suit under Section 6 would have the option of filing a fresh suit for recovery of possession on the basis of title, if any.” 10. There are three-fold essential conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant for the grant of relief under Section 6 SRA: (1) That he was exercising previous lawful possession of the immovable property in dispute. (2) That he had been dispossessed wrongfully of such property without his consent and without due process of law. (3) That suit is to be filed within six months of wrongful dispossession. 11. In the case Mohd. Mehtab Khan & Ors. Vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim & Ors. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 221 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that:- “12. A proceeding under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is intended to be a summary proceeding the object of which is to afford an immediate remedy to an aggrieved party to reclaim possession of which he may have been unjustly denied by an illegal act of dispossession. A proceeding under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is intended to be a summary proceeding the object of which is to afford an immediate remedy to an aggrieved party to reclaim possession of which he may have been unjustly denied by an illegal act of dispossession. Questions of title or better rights of possession does not arise for adjudication in a suit under Section 6 where the only issue required to be decided is as to whether the plaintiff was in possession at any time six months prior to the date of filing of the suit. The legislative concern underlying Section 6 of the SR Act is to provide a quick remedy in cases of illegal dispossession so as to discourage litigants from seeking remedies outside the arena of law. The same is evident from the provisions of Section 6(3) which bars the remedy of an appeal or even a review against a decree passed in such a suit.” 12. In the case of Rame Gowda (D) by Lrs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs. and Anr. (2004) 1 SCC 769 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “It is the settled possession or effective possession of a person without title which would entitle him to protect his possession even as against the true owner. The concept of settled possession and the right of the possessor to protect his possession against the owner has come to be settled by a catena of decisions. Illustratively, we may refer to Munshi Ram and Ors. Vs. Delhi Administration (1968) 2 SCR 455 , Puran Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 518 and Ram Rattan and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1977) 1 SCC 188 . The authorities need not be multiplied. In Munshi Ram & Ors.’s case (supra), it was held that no one, including the true owner, has a right to dispossess the trespasser by force if the trespasser is in settled possession of the land and in such a case unless he is evicted in the due course of law, he is entitled to defend his possession even against the rightful owner. But merely stray or even intermittent acts of trespass do not give such a right against the true owner. But merely stray or even intermittent acts of trespass do not give such a right against the true owner. The possession which a trespasser is entitled to defend against the rightful owner must be settled possession, extending over a sufficiently long period of time and acquiesced to by the true owner. A casual act of possession would not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner. The rightful owner may re-enter and reinstate himself provided he does not use more force than is necessary. Such entry will be viewed only as resistance to an intrusion upon his possession which has never been lost.” 13. In the case Poona Ram vs. Moti Ram (D) Th. Lrs. & Ors. Decided on January 29, 2019 it was observed that : “9. The law in India, as it has developed, accords with jurisprudential thought as propounded by luminaries like Salmond. Salmond on Jurisprudence (12 Edn. at paras 59-60) states:- "These two concepts of ownership and possession, therefore, may be used to distinguish between the de facto possessor of an object and its de jure owner, between the man who actually has it and the man who ought to have it. They serve also to contract the position of one whose rights are ultimate, permanent and residual with that of one whose rights are only of a temporary nature. x x x x x In English law possession is a good title of right against any one who cannot show a better. A wrongful possessor has the rights of an owner with respect to all persons except earlier possessors and except the true owner himself. Many other legal systems, however, go much further than this, and treat possession as a provisional or temporary title even against the true owner himself. Even a wrongdoer, who is deprived of his possession, can recover it from any person whatever, simply on the ground of his possession. Even the true owner, who takes his own, may be forced in this way to restore it to the wrongdoer, and will not be permitted to set up his own superior title to it. He must first give up possession, and then proceed in due course of law for the recovery of the thing on the ground of his ownership. Even the true owner, who takes his own, may be forced in this way to restore it to the wrongdoer, and will not be permitted to set up his own superior title to it. He must first give up possession, and then proceed in due course of law for the recovery of the thing on the ground of his ownership. The intention of the law is that every possessor shall be entitled to retain and recover his possession, until deprived of it by a judgment according to law. Legal remedies thus appointed for the protection of possession even against ownership are called possessory, while those available for the protection of ownership itself may be distinguished as proprietary. In the modern and medieval civil law the distinction is expressed by the contrasted terms petitorium (a proprietary suit) and possessorium (a possessory suit). 11. It was also observed by this Court in Nair Service Society Ltd (supra) that a person in possession of land in assumed character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against the entire world except the rightful owner. In such a case, the defendant must show in himself or his predecessor a valid legal title and probably a possession prior to the plaintiff’s, and thus be able to raise a presumption prior in time." 14. The proof of previous lawful possession is a sine qua non to enjoy the benefit of relief under Section 6 SRA. In this regard, the petitioner had produced himself as witness and produced certain documents in evidence. After going through the documents on record, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence led by the Petitioner is sketchy as the initial burden of proof was on the petitioner to prove the case in his favour. However, the petitioner failed to produce any independent witnesses or relevant documents to prove his case. A perusal of the cross-examination of the plaintiff clearly demonstrates that the possession of the suit property was not with the plaintiff as on the alleged date of his dispossession from there. However, the petitioner failed to produce any independent witnesses or relevant documents to prove his case. A perusal of the cross-examination of the plaintiff clearly demonstrates that the possession of the suit property was not with the plaintiff as on the alleged date of his dispossession from there. The relevant portion of cross-examination of the petitioner is reproduced hereinbelow :- ^^eSa vHkh flokaph xsV ds vanj jg jgk gwaA eSa o"kZ 1986 ds i'pkr~ flokaph xsV jg jgk gwaA eSa 'kq: ls flokaph xsV jg jgk gwaA eSa ifjokj lfgr flokaph xsV jg jgk gwaA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSa esjs tUe ls flokaph xsV jg jgk gwaA** 15. Thus, this Court is not convinced that the petitioner was able to prove his possession on the property in question and consequently, fulfill the necessary condition of Section 6 SRA. Upon perusal of the statements of the petitioner, it is evident that there are material contradictions in the petitioner’s statements and he failed to show as to when and how he was dispossessed from the property. Mere filing of certain documents such as Ex-1 receipt, Ex-2 license, Ex-3 Permission for construction etc. do not prove that the petitioner was actually in possession of the suit property. 16. Since the petitioner failed to prove his possession which is one of the essential conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant for the grant of relief under Section 6 SRA, the trial court has committed no error in passing the order impugned and has rightly held that the petitioner has failed to prove that he was unlawfully dispossessed from the property in question. 17. In view of above discussion, the revision petition having no merit, is hereby dismissed. 18. Stay petition also stands dismissed. 19. Record of the learned trial court be sent back forthwith.