JUDGMENT :

Inderjeet Singh, J.

1. Instant second appeal has been filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as "defendants") against the order dated 06.03.2010 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sawaimadhopur, whereby the appeal filed on behalf the respondent (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff") against the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Khandar was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit on 08.04.1999 for permanent injunction and declaration against the defendants before the learned Trial Court stating therein that the plaintiff is having possession over a piece of land in dispute measuring 16 fts. x 26 fts., which was purchased by him from the defendant No. 5-Radheshyam on 07.07.1993 by registered sale deed, after paying consideration of Rs. 12,000/-. Since, then he is having the peaceful possession over the plot in dispute of which, he is the sole owner. The plaintiff has also obtained the "Patta" from the Gram Panchayat Khandar on 23.03.1998 after paying consideration of Rs. 1,007/- and the Gram Panchayat Khandar has granted permission for construction over the plot in dispute and when he started the construction over the plot in dispute on 25.03.1999, then the defendants obstructed, therefore a suit was filed by the plaintiff and prayed that the defendants be restrained not to obstruct the construction over the plot in dispute.

3. The defendants filed reply before the learned Trial Court stating therein that the defendant No. 5-Radheshayam has never sold the plot in dispute to the plaintiff and defendants are having possession over the plot in dispute.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:

^^¼1½ vk;k fd oknh ds LokfeRo o vkf/kiR; dk okf.kT;d Hkw&[k.M 16 xq.kk 26 QhV okn ds pj.k 2 dh prqlhZek dk fLFkr gS tks fnukad 7-7-1993 dks Áfroknh&5 jk/ks';ke ls 12]000@& :i;s esa Ø; fd;k Fkk o ftl ij fuekZ.k gsrq oknh us iRFkj Hkh Mky j[ks gSaA &oknh
¼2½ vk;k fd oknh us fnukad 30-3-1998 dks xzke iapk;r [k.Mkj esa 1]007@& :i;s tek djok;s o fuekZ.k rFkk njoktk gsrq iV~Vk iapk;r us tkjh fd;kA &oknh
¼3½ vk;k fd oknh dks Áfroknhx.k mDr Hkw&[k.M ls csn[ky djus ij vkeknk gSA bl gsrq LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn djokus dk vf/kdkjh gSA &oknh
¼4½ vk;k fd Áfroknh y{e.k us lu~ 1965 esa xzke iapk;r [k.Mkj ls 15 xq.kk 15 oxZ xt dCts 'kqnk Hkwfe ij pkj nhokjh cukus dh Lohd`fr yh rHkh ls dkfct pys vk jgs gSaA &oknh
¼5½ vk;k fd Áfroknh&5 us mDr IykV Áfroknh&2 ls ÁkIr gqvk o mlus oknh ds i{k esa dHkh Hkh cspku ukek ugha fd;k o c&gSflr ekfyd IykV ij dkfct gSA &Áfroknh**

5. In support of his contention, plaintiff-Prabhu Lal submitted his own evidence as PW-1 and also adduced the evidence of PW-2 Ram Narayan. In documentary evidence, he submitted Ex. P-1 to P-3 and on behalf of defendants evidence of DW-1 Ram Karan, DW-2 Ram Phal, DW-3 Gopal & DW-4 Radheshyam was recorded.

6. After hearing of the parties, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff vide its judgment and decree dated 02.08.2001. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2001, the defendants filed a regular first appeal before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sawaimadhopur, who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2001 passed by the learned Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 06.03.2010. Hence, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants.

7. Counsel for the defendants submits that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is against the facts and law and the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court on issues No. 1 & 2 are perverse. Counsel further submits that the learned Courts below failed to consider the evidence submitted on behalf of the defendants and prayed for quashing of the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts bel