Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Section 96 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Pali, whereby, the suit filed by the appellant -plaintiff seeking possession of the house, mesne profit and damages has been dismissed.
(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus: -the plaintiff claimed that the suit house boundaries whereof were indicated in para -1 of the plaint was of his ownership; plaintiff was resident of Balotra and used to visit Siriyari on and of; certain goods were lying in the suit house; on 01.11.1996 plaintiff locked his house and went to Balotra and when he returned back on 01.12.1996 to Siriyari, the goods lying in the house were missing, the lock of the room was broken and when plaintiff wanted to enter the house, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 prevented him. As such the defendants have trespassed on the house and have stolen the goods. It was claimed that the goods were worth Rs. 3,000/ - and it was prayed that possession of the house alongwith damages of Rs. 3,000/ - and mesne profit @ Rs. 600/ - be awarded. The defendants, who are real brothers of the plaintiff, filed a written statement, wherein, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 filed separate written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. It was submitted that plaintiff does not have any house at Siriyari, he has sold his agriculture land by registered sale deed to Vimla, Patasi and Sukhiya from whom they (defendants) have purchased the said land and he has no right in the said agriculture land; the possession and title over the house was denied; it was claimed that as the house was constructed on agriculture land, the revenue court only has jurisdiction; the land was attached to the road and between their land and the road there was no Government land; the valuation of the land was alleged as excessive. It was claimed that the house was constructed in Khasra No. 709, which is in their possession and prayed that the suit be dismissed.
(3.) THE trial court framed eight issues. On behalf of plaintiff, six witnesses were examined and on behalf of defendants, five witnesses were examined.;