ORDER

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the judgement and decree dated 15.12.2021 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kaman, District Bharatpur whereby, the Civil First Appeal No.13/2013 (CIS No.13/2013, CNR No.RJBH2A0000672013) preferred by the respondents-plaintiffs, has partly been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2013 passed by learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, District Bharatpur dismissing the suit No.252/2011 (36/2011), has been reversed.

2. The facts in brief are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction qua a piece of land situated in Village Gurira, Tehsil Kaman, District Bharatpur claiming the same to be under their possession since centuries, being used for their residence as also for other sundry purposes. It was alleged that the defendants were trying to interfere with their peaceful possession and hence, a decree of permanent injunction was prayed for. The defendants in their written statement submitted that the land in question was part of Khasra No.226 min which was purchased by the defendant No.3 through a registered sale deed from its erstwhile Khatedar Roopsingh and was under their possession. It was stated that in a revenue suit filed by them against the plaintiffs and their family members, they were restrained by the decree of permanent injunction from interfering with land of Khasra No.226 min under their possession by the Court of SDO, Kaman vide its judgement dated 30.03.2012.

3. The suit filed by the respondents was dismissed by the Court of Nyayadhikari, Kaman vide its judgment and decree dated 20.09.2013 which was successfully challenged by them by way of a first appeal which has partly been allowed by the learned Additional District Judge vide its judgment and decree dated 15.12.2021.

4. Assailing the impugned judgement and decree, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned appellate Court erred in recording a finding that the plaintiffs and their witnesses were not subjected to cross-examination qua their possession over the land in question; whereas, it was so done. Drawing attention of this Court towards the cross-examination of PW4, Roop Singh, the erstwhile Khatedar of the land in question, learned counsel submitted that he has admitted therein that he has sold one bigha of land out of Khasra No.226 min to the defendant No.3 who was in its possession. He contended that the learned appellate Court did not appreciate that there was a decree of permanent injunction against the respondents by a competent Revenue Court qua the subject land. Relying on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors.; (2008) 4 SCC 594, learned counsel canvassed that a suit simplicitor for permanent injunction in absence of declaration of title was not maintainable. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the judgement and decree dated 15.12.2021 be quashed and set aside.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. The learned appellate Court has recorded a finding that while the plaintiffs as PW1 & PW2 respectively have categorically stated in their examination-in-chief that they were in possession of the subject land since the time of their forefathers; but, they were not subjected to any cross-examination on this aspect by the appellants- defendants during the course of their cross-examination. Similarly, other plaintiff witnesses who have made similar statements, were also not cross-examined on this aspect. This Court after going through their cross-examination, concurs with the findings of the learned appellate Court. It is trite law that if a witness is not subjected to cross-examination on vital aspect of the matter having material bearing on the issue, his statement in the examination-in- chief is deemed to be admitted by the other party. In these circumstances, this Court does not find