JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA,J. - (1.) Plaintiff-appellants have filed this second appeal challenging judgment and decree dated 24.3.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Dausa, District Dausa, whereby he affirmed judgment and decree dated 27.5.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dausa, in Civil Suit No.49/2004.
(2.) Plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction and declaration against defendant-respondents in respect of the land in question on the basis of long peaceful possession for last more than sixty years, which was objected by defendant-respondents by filing written statement stating that the plaintiff-appellants have filed the suit to regularize their encroachment over the land in question, which is meant for the temple. Learned court below, considering the arguments of both the parties as also the evidence adduced on their behalf, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 27.5.2010, which has been affirmed by learned first appellate court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 24.3.2015. Hence this second appeal on behalf of plaintiff-appellants.
(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants argued that the plaintiff-appellants moved an application dated 15.2.2012 for appointment of receiver but learned first appellate court rejected the same without considering that it was obligatory to appoint receiver so that correct status of the land in question could have come on record. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff-appellants specifically established that the land in question is in their possession since the time of their ancestors. Had the learned first appellate court summoned the report of the Commissioner, the correct status of the land would have come on record. The plaintiff-appellants have been using the land in question and construction has been raised thereon of toilet, bathroom and boundary wall. The land in question is situated in front of the house of the plaintiff-appellants. Exhibit P-3 is a public document which states that the land in question is in possession of the plaintiff-appellants. The witnesses of the defendants have also admitted existence of bathroom on the land in question.;