J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) Instant special appeals have been preferred against order of the learned Single Judge dated 16-9-2014.
(2.) It is not in dispute that the concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the Revenue Court i.e. SDO and travelled upto the Board of Revenue and the learned Single Judge of this Court while upholding the finding observed that the appellants were not in possession at the time when the suit for permanent injunction was filed at their instance u/S 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 at the same time the respondent-defendants were claiming their rights over the subject property in question and they too filed their cross objections and the learned SDO examined the suit for permanent injunction so also the cross objections filed by the respondent-defendants and in all ten issues were framed and with respect to issue no.1, it was recorded that as per Jamabandi of 51 to 54 names of the present appellants were recorded as khatedars but no tangible evidence was placed on record in support thereof to prove their possession and as regards issue no.2 is concerned finding was recorded against the plaintiff-appellants finding no foundation to take forcible possession of the subject land and as regards issue no.3 & 4 is concerned it was recorded in regard to certain khasras the appellants failed to prove their case and it was observed that subject land in question was earlier recorded in the name of defendants' ancestor. It was also observed that at the time of "Khatoni Bandobast", the appellants submitted entries of Samwat 2018 & 2019 to indicate that it was recorded in the name of Chothu, Kana s/o Shri Chandra Meena but corresponding Jamabandi and new Khatedari numbers were not produced. Apart from it there was a revenue record with respect to Khasra No.596 and 594 were from Khasra Nos. 646, 643, 645, 679, 680 and 681 and it was earlier Khasra No.203 and similarly, for other Khasras, finding was recorded that the Khasras referred to were recorded in the name of defendants' ancestors and accordingly issue No.3 was decided against the plaintiff-appellants.
(3.) Similar was the discussion for issue No.4 and it was observed that since the appellants failed to satisfy that there was proof of possession it was observed that the appellants were not entitled to injunction as claimed for. As regards issue no.6,7,8 & 9 are concerned, they all were decided in favour of the defendants and it was held that they are in possession of the subject land in question. As regards issue no.10 is concerned, which was in respect of settlement proceedings or for consolidation as to whether the land belonging to the defendants could have been recorded in the name of the present appellants without an order, thus as to whether declaration can be sought by the defendants for their khatedari rights and this issue was decided in favour of the defendant-respondents.;