Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.9.2007 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track), No. 1, Pali, Head Quarter Jaitaran, District Pali, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 5.10.2004 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Jaitaran, District Pali was dismissed and the decree passed by the trial court has been affirmed.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, may be noticed thus: the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 Gheesa Lal filed a suit for permanent injunction on 11.10.1995 with the averments that a 'Bada' (Nohra) situated at Nimbaj was in the plaintiff's ancestral possession, around which slabs were put and was in the use of the plaintiff's family for over 40 years. It was claimed that the plaintiff's grand -father Budha Ram had a house in the said Nohra and during life time of his grand -father, defendant No. 1 Ganga Ram left Nimbaj; after death of his grand -father, the house being temporary, fell down and the plaintiff's father Rawat Ram started using the same as open land. The defendant No. 1 is permanent resident of Jaitaran for over 20 years and he never remained in possession. It was alleged that for over one year, the defendant No. 1 started claiming right over the suit property and wanted to claim the entire property, which was not accepted by the plaintiff. On 10.10.1995, the defendant No. 1 met the plaintiff at Jaitaran and informed that he has sold the entire Nohra to the defendant No. 2 and he should hand over possession to the defendant No. 2. It was claimed that the plaintiff was in possession of the entire Nohra as he had got title by adverse possession and the defendants were seeking to dispossess the plaintiff and therefore, permanent injunction was sought against the defendants not to dispossess the plaintiff. A written statement was filed by the defendants. It was claimed that the defendant No. 2 had purchased the plot and the same was in his possession. It was claimed that the suit property was given by way of oral partition to the defendant No. 1 and the slabs were put up by the defendant No. 1 only; there was no cause for the plaintiff and he was not in possession; no prayer for cancellation of registration in favour of the defendant No. 2 has been made and the suit was not maintainable.
(3.) THE trial court framed eight issues and after oral and documentary evidence was led by the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the disputed plot was ancestral, the plaintiff was in possession and was using the same for keeping his live stock; the defendant No. 1 had no right to sell the entire property to the defendant No. 2; the defendants were attempting to dispossess the plaintiff; the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property; the partition of the suit property was not proved; the suit even without seeking cancellation of the sale deed was maintainable and ultimately decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and restrained the defendants from dispossessing him.;