Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) The Civil Original Suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants on 31.08.1996 seeking declaration and perpetual injunction against the defendants-respondents with the averments that the defendants were unauthorised interfering with their possession on the property in dispute was put to trial, after the defendants stated in their written statement that the plaintiffs were not related with the land in dispute that has been allotted to the defendant No.1 (Headmaster, Govt. Upper Primary School, Jogpur) by the Collector, Dungarpur on 21.12.1977 for the purpose of the playground, on the following issues:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...
(2.) After taking the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sagwara proceeded to decide the questions involved in the matter by the impugned judgment dated 03.03.2003. The learned Judge held in issue No.5 that the disputed property was an agriculture land and only the Revenue Court had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. After appreciation of evidence, in issues Nos. 1 and 2, the learned Judge held that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their entitlement over the land in question and found proved the fact that the land in question was allotted to the defendant No.1 by the Collector, Dungarpur for the purpose of playground; in issue No.3 held the suit to be barred by limitation; and in issue No.6 considered it appropriate to award Rs.1,000/- as special costs to the defendants. Accordingly, the learned trial court proceeded to dismiss the suit with such costs.
(3.) The learned District Judge, Dungarpur has considered and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs (Civil Appeal No. 4/2003) by the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.05.2007. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs appellants that the trial court has erred in ignoring the Commissioner's report dated 05.09.2001 and in not considering that the appellants were in possession of the suit property having their residential houses thereat; and it was also urged that in view of the finding on issue No.5 when the land in question was treated to be an agriculture land, the learned trial court ought to have been returned the plaint.;