- (1.) The Krishi Upaj Mandi, the appellant-plaintiff, is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 1.6.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Amer, District Ajmer, whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff. The appellant-plaintiff is also aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3.11.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Ajmer, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 1.6.2006.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that initially in the year 1976 some land was acquired for the construction of a Krishi Upaj Mandi. The respondent-defendants had filed a suit, namely Suit No.9/1982 against the Krishi Upaj Mandi. During the pendency of the said suit, the appellant and the respondent-defendants had entered into a compromise. According to the compromise, it was agreed between the parties that the land falling between the National Highway and the wall of the Krishi Upaj Mandi, shall be returned back to the respondent-defendants, and the Krishi Upaj Mandi shall have no interest or title thereto. Moreover, the land falling in khasra Nos.1384 to 1396 shall be used by the respondent-defendants for the purpose for which it was being used prior to the acquisition. However, consequently, according to the appellant, the respondent-defendants started subdividing the land into plots and started selling the plot. Therefore, the appellant filed a suit against the respondent-defendants. In order to support their suit they examined a single witness and submitted twelve documents. In turn, the respondent-defendants examined three witnesses and submitted five documents. After going through the oral and the documentary evidence, by judgment and decree dated 1.6.2006 the learned Magistrate dismissed the suit. Since the appellant were aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, they filed a regular first appeal before the learned Judge. However, by judgment and decree dated 2.11.2007 the appeal was dismissed by the learned Judge. Hence, this second appeal before this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that while both the courts below have relied upon the compromise dated 22.5.1985 entered between the parties, neither of the courts have noticed the fact that the respondent-defendants were supposed to use the land for the very purpose it was being used prior to the acquisition. Therefore, the learned courts below have erred in dismissing the suit. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the entire case is based on factual matrix. There are concurrent finding of facts by both the learned courts below. Therefore, no substantial question of law is raised before this Court. Hence, the second appeal is not maintainable.;