Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2008 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand, whereby the judgment and decree dated 13.1.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Railmagra, District Rajsamand has been upheld.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, may be noticed thus: the plaintiff -appellant filed a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction regarding a Nohra at Village Karoliya and prayed that he be declared as its owner and sought injunction against the defendants from interfering with plaintiff's possession and in case during the pendency of the suit any interference is done, then by mandatory injunction, the same be removed. A written statement was filed by the defendants disputing the claim made by the plaintiff and denied possession of the plaintiff. It was indicated that the suit property was in possession of the receiver under the provisions of Section 145 Cr.P.C. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed.
(3.) THE trial court framed six issues and after oral and documentary evidence was led by the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession and use of the suit property; the plaintiff failed to prove as to based on which document he was owner of the suit property and in view of conflicting stands regarding nature of possession, he failed to prove both stands; the receiver has already been removed and possession has been handed over to the defendant No. 1; the suit was properly valued; the trial court has jurisdiction to decide the suit and dismissed the suit.;