P.K. Lohra, J. - (1.) Appellants-plaintiffs have filed this second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. to assail concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below have recorded a finding of fact against the appellants-plaintiffs to decline the relief for declaration & Injunction.
(2.) The facts, in brief, are that appellants-plaintiffs filed a civil suit before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tibbi for claiming various reliefs including relief of declaring the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue as null and void and an omnibus prayer to declare all adverse verdicts against the appellants-plaintiffs a nullity. The main edifice of the suit for declaration and injunction was that suit property is the property acquired by erstwhile Jagirdar, the ancestor of the plaintiffs as Khudkast on resumption of Jagir under Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act') and the law for the time being in force.
(3.) Learned trial Court, on consideration of evidence and other materials available on record, recorded a categorical finding that appellants-plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove the suit property as the property owned by the ancestors of the plaintiffs on resumption of Jagir being Khudkasht land of a Jagirdar or any other property envisaged under Section 23 of the Act. While recording finding on Issue No. 1, learned trial Court has specifically held that there is no semblance of proof about acquisition of property by the ancestors of the appellants as a consequence of resumption of Jagir. On appreciation of evidence the learned trial Court reached to a definite conclusion that appellants have failed to discharge their burden to prove Issue No. 2 and consequently the same is also decided against the appellants. While adverting to Issue No. 3, the learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence & available material recorded a definite finding that decision rendered by the Board of Revenue is not ineffective vis-a-vis appellants. As per learned trial Court appellants have failed to discharge their burden and consequently decided the said issue against them.;