VIJAY KUMAR VYAS, J.

1. This second appeal has arisen out of judgment & decree dated 16.11.1996 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 35/1996 by which it reversed the judgment & decree dated 27.4.1996 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 25/1997, whereby the suit was rejected.

2. In brief, facts of the matter are that one Radhey Shyam (deceased) filed a suit for injunction on 23.6.1987 stating inter alia that the property in question was given to Radhey Shyam Agarwal in gift by way of “Patta” by late His Highness Maharaja Sawai Man Singh in the year 1968. The possession was also given and he is continuously holding the possession through his servant who rears his cattle in the same. It was further averred that his general Power of Attorney Holder was also carrying on business of tent in the premises in question. The plaintiffs/respondents prayed that the defendants/appellants be restrained from interfering in possession, not take possession of the same and should not alter the premises in question during pendency of the suit. Radhey Shyam died and his legal heirs have been brought on record. The defendants/appellants denied the averments of the plaint in their written statements and averred that the property in question was previously of the Erstwhile State and it is part of Janana Dyodhi building. After 1949 and merger of Erstwhile State, the Janana Dyodhi building as a whole vests in the State and as such there was no question of allotting or giving in gift of any property of the State Government by His Highness Maharaja Sawai Man Singh to the plaintiffs-respondents. After 1949, the Erstwhile Ruler was not having any ownership right over the property, as such, it belongs to the State Government. The alleged gift is fake and forged one. Plaintiffs wanted to take possession of the property and the State Government have every right to restrain the other person/persons from taking possession of the State property. The request was made for rejecting the plot with costs. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed:-

1- vk;k oknxzLr lEifr ftldk o.kZu okni= ds in uaΠ1 HkwriwoZ ujs'k t;iqj Lo0 egkjktk lokbZ ekuflagth ds LokfeRo esa lu~ 1968 o mlls iwoZ jgh \

2- D;k oknxzLr ifjlj esa oknh lu~ 1968 ls dkfct gS \

3- D;k oknxzLr ifjlj esa 13-6-87 rd oknh ds rkys yxs gq, Fks] ftUgsa izfroknx.k us iqfyl dh lgk;rk ls 14-6-87 dks [kqyok dj vius rkys yxk fn;s \

4- D;k oknh izfroknhx.k dks LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcan djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS \

5- D;k oknh] oknxzLr ifjlj ls izfroknhx.k ds rkys gVokus dk vf/kdkjh gS \

6- D;k oknh }kjk izfroknhx.k dks lhihlh dh /kkjk 80 ds vUrxZr uksfVl ugha nsus ls oknh dk okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gS \

7- D;k oknh }kjk ?kks"k.kkRed vuqrks"k dh izkFkZuk ugha djus ls mldk LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gS \

8- D;k izfroknhx.k] oknh ls gtkZ [kkl 5000@&:- ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \

9- vk;k oknxzLr lEifr o"kZ 1949 ls la;qDr jktLFkku jkT; ds fuekZ.k ds le; HkwriwoZ egkjktk lokbZ ekuflag] t;iqj ds izfroknhx.k ds LokfeRo o vf/kdkj esa vk;h \

10- vk;k oknxzLr lEifr tukuh M~;kS<h dh lEifr dk ,d fgLlk gS \

11- vuqrks"k \

3. Plaintiffs-respondents examined 18 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents. Defendants examined 5 witnesses and not exhibited any documents. Learned trial court after hearing both the parties, dismissed suit vide judgment & decree dated 27.4.1996.

4. The plaintiffs/respondents filed an appeal. After hearing both the parties, the appellate court i.e. Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide its judgment & decree dated 16.11.1996 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment & decree of the trial court and passed a mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents and against the defendants-appellants for removing locks and to give possession of the property in dispute to the plaintiffs-respondents within a period of 15 days.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgm