Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) The appellants-plaintiffs by way of the present first appeal have challenged the judgment and decree dated 21.5.1992 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1 Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No.15/92, whereby the trial court had dismissed the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs seeking possession of the suit premises, and seeking mesne-profits from the respondents-defendants.
(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellants-plaintiffs had filed the suit alleging the inter alia that the appellants had purchased four shops together with the roof and stair cases thereof situated at Gur Ki Mandi, Bharatpur from one Gyanendra Nath and Mahendra Nath, by way of registered sale deed dated 29.11.1980. According to the appellants, one Shri Purshottam Lal Tandon, the father of Shri Gyanendra Nath and Mahendra Nath, was the tenant of the said shops belonging to the custodian department of State of Rajasthan, and subsequently he had purchased the said shops from the said department vide the registered sale deed dated 29.05.1968. According to the appellants-plaintiffs out of the said shops one shop situated on the northern side of the other shops had four divisions. On 8.8.1981, the respondents nos.2, 3 & 4 had started demolishing the southern wall of the said shop (shop no.30) as shown in the map at exhibits 3 & 5. When the father of the appellants tried to restrain the respondents from demolishing the said wall, the respondents started quarrelling with him, and thereafter on 10.08.1981, the respondents illegally took away possession of the last two parts of the said shop by constructing a wall by bricks. The appellants-plaintiffs therefore had filed the suit. The said suit was resisted by the respondents-defendants, denying the allegations made therein by the appellants, and further contending inter alia that the respondent No.1 Gopal Prasad was in possession of the disputed premises and the other defendants were not concerned about the said premises. It was further contended that the respondent No.1 being in possession of the said disputed premises since last more than 30 years, he had become owner of the said premises, and therefore the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed. The trial court from the pleadings of the parties had framed the following issues:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...
(3.) The trial court after appreciating the evidence, had dismissed the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs, by deciding issue Nos.1, 2, 3 & 7 in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs and rest of the issues against the appellants-plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the said judgment & decree, the appellants have preferred the present first appeal under Section 96 of CPC. This Court had admitted the appeal vide the order dated 25.08.1992, and directed the parties to maintain status-quo vide the order dated 13.08.1997. When the matter was posted for final hearing before this Court, the Court considering the controversy involved in the appeal had appointed the Commissioner to elucidate the truth, who has submitted her report which is part of the record.;