Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.6.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Gangapur, District Bhilwara, whereby the suit filed by the appellants -plaintiffs was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 14.9.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Camp Gangapur, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 4.6.2004 has been rejected.
(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus: the plaintiffs -appellants filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction on 3.6.1994 with the averments that the plaintiffs alongwith defendant No. 8 purchased the suit property from defendant No. 1 Smt. Kesar, who executed a sale deed on 16.3.1993 for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/ - and the sale deed was registered and possession was handed over, ever since the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property. The vendor Smt. Kesar has no male issue and has only two daughters, who are staying at their in -laws' place; it was alleged that the defendant No. 4 grand daughter of the vendor on 1.5.1994 alongwith defendants No. 5 to 7 with an intention to dispossess the bonafide purchasers and to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs tried to dispossess them and therefore, an application was made to police station Gangapur. Again on 29.5.1994, they indulged in the same activity and the defendants can dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property and therefore, issuance of permanent injunction was necessary against them and if during the pendency of the suit, the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs, then mandatory injunction be issued for handing over possession of the suit property. It was claimed that the cause of action arose on 1.5.1994 and 29.5.1994. A written statement was filed by the defendants. It was claimed that the suit property belonged to the husband of the vendor Smt. Kesar and after death of Jawahar Mal, husband of Smt. Kesar, the property is not exclusively owned by Smt. Kesar and she (Smt. Kesar) was fraudulently made to sign the sale deed and without payment of any consideration, the document was got executed. Certain other submissions were also made seeking to question the validity of the sale deed. It was specifically indicated that the plaintiffs were never in possession and the suit property continuous to be in possession of the defendants Smt. Kesar and Sohani, which is proved from the Commissioner's Report, which was obtained in the misc. application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 CPC. As the plaintiffs were never in possession, there was no question of attempt to dispossess. The allegations were made that the plaintiffs based on the fraudulent sale deed tried to dispossess the defendants and therefore, the report dated 4.5.1994 was filed before the S.P., Bhilwara. It was also claimed that the suit has been filed on deficient Court Fee and Valuation of the suit property is higher, the trial court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit. Ultimately, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.
(3.) THE trial court framed as many as eight issues. On behalf of the plaintiffs, four witnesses were examined and two documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendants one witness was examined and one document was got executed.;