Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the plaintiff -appellant -Daljeet Singh S/o. Tara Singh against the defendant -respondent -Chhagani Ram S/o. Achalu Ram being aggrieved by the reversal of the decree by the first appellate court by the impugned order dated 05.02.2002 allowing the defendant -Chhagani Ram's appeal, namely Civil Appeal (Decree) No. 2/2002 : Chhagani Ram & Anr. Vs. Daljeet Singh.
(2.) THE learned Trial Court had decreed the suit (Civil Original Suit No. 230/2000 (287/1995) for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff -Daljeet Singh on 21.12.2001. The relevant findings of the learned Trial Court narrating the facts in brief are quoted herein below for ready reference: - The first appeal filed by the defendant -Chhagani Ram, however, came to be allowed by the first appellate court of learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur allowing the defendants -Chhagani Ram's appeal, namely Civil Appeal (Decree) No. 2/2002 : Chhagani Ram & Anr. Vs. Daljeet Singh with the following observations: -
(3.) BEING aggrieved, the plaintiff -Daljeet Singh has filed the present second appeal in this Court on 02.04.2002 in which, the following substantial questions of law were framed by the co -ordinate Bench of this Court on 11.01.2007 which read as under: - "(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of material on record, it can be held that the plaintiff was/is not in possession of the land in question? (b) Whether in absence of ownership of an open plot, only on the basis of some movable material, it can be said that defendant was/is in possession of the land in question? (c) Whether the finding of the learned First Appellate Court about possession is based on mis -reading of the evidence? (d) Whether even as per the report given by the Court Commissioner, possession of the plaintiff has been proved or not -;