Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) IMPLORING annulment of common judgment dated 31st March, 2004 in five appeals, rendered by District Judge, Balotra (learned lower appellate Court), appellants -plaintiffs have laid these two appeals under Section 100 CPC. Learned lower appellate Court, by the impugned judgment, allowed all the appeals and dismissed the suits filed by plaintiff, while reversing the judgment and decree dated 11th August, 1994 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Balotra (learned trial Court) in individual suits including the suits filed against the respondents -defendants in the present appeals.
(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated, the facts of the cases are that Jitendra Singh, original plaintiff, instituted five civil suits for possession before the learned trial Court including the suits against the respondents in both these appeals. In the plaints, it is, inter alia, averred by the plaintiff that a land owned by him, popularly known as Thela Raibariyan Bara (Vagar) at Jasol, is in possession of his ancestors since time immemorial. For demarcating the suit property, a site plan is also enclosed with the plaint with markings A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I. With a view to prove ownership on the land, original plaintiff has asserted, in the plaint, that his ancestors were Jagirdars of village Jasol and, at the time of resumption of Jagir, his grand -father, Jalam Singh was alive and Madho Singh S/o. Jalam Singh, i.e., father of the plaintiff, died in lifetime of Madho Singh. Therefore, as per the assertion of the appellants -plaintiffs, at the time of resumption of Jagir, the suit property was also declared as property of the erstwhile Jagirdar and his grant father Thakur Madho Singh staked claim for various properties to be declared as his personal properties. While making endeavour, lists of properties were also submitted by Shri Madho Singh before Jagir Commissioner, Jaipur, wherein suit property also found mentioned, and the Jagir Commissioner, after undertaking requisite inquiry, declared all the properties, which were incorporated in the lists submitted by Shri Madho Singh, as his properties. A specific case is set out by the plaintiff that the order passed by the Jagir Commissioner dated 9th January, 1970 has taken into account various properties of Thakur Madho Singh including the suit property and declared the same to be owned by erstwhile Jagirdar. Basing on the order passed by the Jagir Commissioner, the plaintiff has asserted that the property was in possession of his ancestors and former Jagirdar of village Jasol, Shri Himmat Singh, as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, has also acknowledged the said property of Jagirdar. In that background, the plaintiff has claimed that nobody is having any right to interfere with ownership and possession of the plaintiff on suit property. In order to show cause of action against the respondents -defendants, the plaintiff has asserted that the so -called possession is nothing but illegal encroachment and despite warning and publishing a notice in the newspaper, when the respondents -defendants not mend ways, it became imperative for the plaintiff to file suit for possession. The plaintiff has also claimed mesne profit for use and occupation of the land allegedly encroached over by the respondents -defendants and a decree is also sought for declaring him owner of the suit property. The respondents -defendants submitted written statements refuting all the allegations. In the written statements dimensions and neighbourhood shown in the site plan were also seriously disputed. It is also averred, in the written statements, that suit property never remained in possession of the ancestors of the plaintiff and, as such, plaintiff is having no right, title and interest over the said property. A specific plea was incorporated, in the written statements, that the said land was taken over by Gram Panchayat, Jasol as abadi land in the year 1973 and before that it was a revenue land, which cannot be owned by an individual.
(3.) AS regards the order of Jagir Commissioner, respondents -defendants have pleaded that, on the strength of that order, plaintiff cannot be allowed to assert his claim over the land in question inasmuch as Jagir Commissioner has not made any endeavour to conduct proper inquiry. Before passing the order, respondents -defendants have set out a specific case that they are bona fide purchasers of the land from one Sobhag Singh by a registered sale -deed and, when possession was handed over, plaintiff was well -aware about the entire transaction. Respondents -defendants have also asserted in the written statements that land, which was part of the suit property, is allotted to one Misrimal by Gram Panchayat, on the strength of long possession, after taking requisite fee wherein plaintiff had objected, but his objections were not sustained by Gram Panchayat. It is also pleaded that not questioning the said allotment by the plaintiff, pre -supposes that entire claim of the plaintiff is baseless, false and untenable. An objection about valuation of the suit and deficit Court fee is also incorporated in the written statements. The respondents -defendants, while assailing the order of Jagir Commissioner, submitted, in the written statements, that earlier two lists containing details about the property were submitted by Madho Singh and in those lists suit property was not mentioned, and subsequently third list is submitted by the plaintiff, wherein suit property is mentioned and as such it is per -se unbelievable that it was the property owned by erstwhile Jagirdar. Once again, it is reiterated that Jagir Commissioner has not made any inquiry as it contemplated under Section 23 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act'). Respondents -defendants have incorporated a specific plea in the written statements that they are bona fide purchasers of the property from Sobhag Singh and execution of registered sale -deed is within the knowledge of plaintiff, therefore, present suits, which are filed after inordinate delay, are barred by limitation. Objection about non -joinder of necessary parties, namely, Sobhag Singh and Gram Panchayat is also incorporated in the written statements. In order to prove possession, respondents -defendants have also specifically pleaded in the written statements that a notice was issued by Gram Panchayat for removal of possession, which was duly replied by the respondents -defendants through the counsel and subsequently Gram Panchayat, while treating it to be its own land, asked them to pay the requisite amount and, on payment of said amount, possession was regularised. This action of Gram Panchayat is also assailed by the plaintiff by submitting objection, but his effort proved abortive. Therefore, the suits are liable to be rejected. The learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of rival parties, framed following issues for determination: - - ;