1. - Appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 1st of October 1984, passed by District Judge, Balotra camp Barmer (for short, 'learned trial Court'), whereby the suit filed by them for declaration, perpetual injunction and possession with damages is dismissed.

2. Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that appellant-plaintiffs laid a civil suit for the aforementioned reliefs, inter-alia, on the ground that in Samvat 2003 (corresponding to year 1946) on Asad Sud 13, Thakur Madho Singh of Jasol allotted a piece of land to Oswal Samaj in Inayat and immediately after allotment its boundary was fortified by stone slabs and since then it is in possession of Oswal Samaj. The dimensions of the land, allotted/donated to Oswal Samaj, are mentioned in Para 2 of the plaint. In the plaint, it is averred that before abolition of Jagir, the land vested in Thakur Madho Singh and being its sole owner, Thakur Madho Singh allotted the same to Oswal Samaj in the form of Inayat and as such it is Pattasud land of Oswal Samaj since the date of allotment i.e. Samvat 2003. For proving title of Oswal Samaj, it is also stated in the plaint that on some of the stone slabs, fortifying the land, name of Oswal Samaj is also inscribed. A specific averment was made in the plaint that the land in question never vested in panchayat. A site plan showing the details of the land is also annexed with the plaint. After allotment, part of the land is being utilised by Samaj by constructing courtyard (Bara), a defecating place for the ladies of Samaj. For looking after the land in question, Oswal Samaj appointed one Cheelra s/o Wala, Rawna Rajput of Jasol and in the year 1972 he started using the same for his live stocks and also constructed a temporary hut for his dwelling. When the objectionable activities of Cheelra were resisted by Samaj, he started quarrelling with the members of Oswal Samaj and refused to vacate the part of the land on which he was having possession. The cantankerous behavior of Cheelra and disturbance of public tranquility was reported by Samaj and proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. were also initiated. In the meanwhile, Cheelra spread his tentacles to grab the land and his sons also joined hands with him for making encroachment on the land. In that background, the suit was filed.

3. Earlier, for the land in question there was litigation before Jagir Commissioner and Jagir Commissioner decided the matter in favour of Oswal Samaj but Gram Panchayat without any authority of law passed an order against the decision of Jagir Commissioner. The Panchayat decided to auction the land in question and a notice under Section 79 of the Panchayat Act was given, however, in collusion with one Sarju Devi, part of the land was auctioned measuring 14204/9 sq.yards. It was in these circumstances, appellant/plaintiffs ventilated their grievances in the suit. The prayer clause of the suit, in vernacular, reads as under:

13- oknhx.k dh izkFkZuk gS fd oknhx.k ds i{k esa o izfroknhx.k ds fo:) fuEu izdkj fMdzh lkfnj QjekbZ tkos %&

"1- nkok ds layXu uD'kk dh dqy Hkwfe , ,e ,y ds ts ,p eqdlsj 7378&7@9 oxZ xt vksloky lekt tlksy dks eeywdk djkj nh tkos] 2- uD'ks esa ntZ ,e ,y ds vkbZ Hkwfe eqdlsj 1420&4@9 oxZ xt dks fd;k x;k fuyke iq[rk u dj oknhx.k dks eeywdk o edcwtk djkj nh tkdj oknhx.k ds dCts esa fdlh rjg dk n[ky u fd;k tkosA 3- uD'ks esa ntZ Mh bZ ,Q ,p Hkwfe 1162&1@2 oxZ xt ij ls izfroknh la[;k 2 rk 6 dk uktk;t dCtk ekuk tkdj bl Hkwfe dk vlkyru dCtk bu izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkos o bl rjg dCtk fnyk;s tkus esa o oknhx.k dk dCtk gks tkus ij izfroknh la[;k 1 oknhx.k ds gdwdksa o dCts esa fdlh rjg dk n[ky u djs]4- izfroknhx.k la[;k 2 rk 6 ls ekfQd nkok eksu izksfQV~l ds :i;s 360@& o rkjh[k nkok ls rkjh[k dCtk rd :i;s 10@& egkokj ds fglkc ls ehu izksfQ~V fnyk;s tkos] 5- LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk bl vej dh lkfnj QjekbZ tkos fd uD'ks esa ntZ dqy Hkwfe