JUDGMENT :

Inderjeet Singh, J.

1. The suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 23.03.2015, against which the appellant-plaintiff preferred appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan which has also been dismissed vide judgment & decree dated 16.09.2015. Both these judgments & decree dated 23.03.2015 and 16.09.2015 have been challenged by the appellant-plaintiff in the present second appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as 'plaintiff') filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction stating therein that the plot in dispute (No. 7) is situated at Sindhu Nagar, Murlipura, Sikar Road, Jaipur, measuring 311.11 sq. Yards, area of which was revised by the Jaipur Development Authority and a revised map of the said plot No. 7 was issued showing the area of the plot as 230.2 sq. Yards. It was further stated that the plot in question was originally allotted to Sh. Suresh Kumar Pareek by Sindhu Nagar Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti and a patta was also issued in his favour. The said plot was purchased by the plaintiff from Sh. Suresh Kumar Pareek and thereafter the plaintiff constructed one room over the plot in dispute and when the plaintiff started raising further construction then on 19.06.2005 the respondents-defendants (hereinafter to be referred as defendants) objected to the construction being raised by the plaintiff and tried to dispossess him from the property in dispute. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit before the learned trial Court for restraining the defendants not to dispossess him from the property in dispute.

3. The defendants filed written statement and stated that the plot in dispute was allotted in the name of mother of defendant Smt. Gulab Devi in a scheme No. 3, Murlipura, Sikar Road, Jaipur by Laxmi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti and after death of their mother the defendants became owner of the plot in dispute and they are having peaceful possession of it. It was further stated that the Jaipur Development Authority has also issued a patta in favour of defendant No. 2 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed two issues for consideration, which read as under:

^^1- vk;k oknh Áfroknhx.k ds fo:} okni= dh pj.k la[;k 2 esa of.kZr ij oknh ds fuekZ.k dk;Z o mi;ksx esa ck/kk ugha djus ckcr LFkkbZ ÁkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\

2- vuqrks"k\** &oknh

5. The learned trial Court after providing a number of opportunities to the plaintiff closed his evidence, which was challenged by the plaintiff by filing a writ petition before this Court and this Court while deciding the writ petition granted one last opportunity to the plaintiff to lead his evidence before the learned trial Court but the plaintiff even after opportunity being granted by this Court failed to lead his evidence and therefore, the learned trial Court again closed his evidence vide order dated 03.05.2013. Finally the learned trial Court after hearing the parties decided the issue No. 1 against the plaintiff as he failed to submit evidence oral as well as documentary in support of his case and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 23.03.2015 which was challenged by the plaintiff by filing appeal which was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.09.2015. Both these judgments and decree dated 23.03.2015 and 16.09.2015 have been challenged by the plaintiff in the present second appeal.

6. Heard counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the matter of C. Doddanarayana Reddy vs. C. Jayarama Reddy reported in (2020) 4 SCC 659 has held that the High Court should be conscious in deciding the appeals where the concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and held in paras 25-