The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a party to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim of exclusive possession, especially in cases involving joint ownership.

JUDGMENT

Sudesh Bansal, J. - appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred as "plaintiff") has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC, assailing judgment and decree dated 22-2-2010 in appeal No.31/2000, passed by District Judge, Sawai Madhopur dismissing appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 29-4-2000 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bonli in Civil Suit No.3/1998 whereby and whereunder plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed.

2. The dispute in the present appeal is between brothers of one family. The plaintiff is claiming his sole ownership and exclusive possession over the plot in question allotted by Gram Panchayat Bonli in his name, whereas, defendants have contended that the plot in question was allotted along with other adjoining three plots and total four plots were allotted by Gram Panchayat to their father. at the time of allotment of all four plots, one plot was allotted in the name of their father and allotment of other three plots were made in the name of three major sons as three other sons were minor at that time. according to defendants all four plots are situated adjoining to each other and joint property of the family, surrounded by pakka boundary-wall. There is no exclusive and separate possession of plaintiff over the plot in question, allotted in his name.

In the backdrop of aforesaid dispute both courts below have recorded findings of fact that the plaintiff could not prove his exclusive possession over the plot in question and the plot in question has been found to be situated in middle of other three plots, and that all four plots have been surrounded by pakka boundary-wall in a joint situation. Hence, civil suit for permanent injunction filed by appellant-plaintiff, against his five brothersdefendants, was dismissed.

3. This court admitted the present appeal on 21-3-2018 on following substantial question of law:-

'Whether the impugned judgment passed by the first appellate court is vitiated as the same is non speaking?'

4. The facts of case are that plaintiff filed a civil suit claiming therein that the plaintiff has no house in Bonli and on the basis of his old possession on bada, a plot having size of 12X15=180 square yards was allotted to plaintiff by Gram Panchayat on 22.04.1973, of which najrana was deposited by him and later on, due to having possession on some excess land area, revised patta dated 14.10.1989 for 55X40=2200 square feet, was issued. The said plot was covered by boundary wall and that northern south wall was Kham, which was covered by bushes. It has been alleged that defendants were not interested to give plaintiff's share in the joint properties, and defendants want to dispossess the plaintiff from his plot. The plot in question is self earned property of plaintiff, on which defendants have no right. Defendants are adament to usurp the plaintiff's plot and desirous to raise construction over plaintiff's plot. Therefore, defendants be restrained from permanent injunction

5. The defendants filed written statement and denied facts of the plaint. It was pleaded that plot in question was not self earned property of the plaintiff nor plot in question is in exclusive and separate possession of plaintiff and no boundary wall was raised by plaintiff, but the plot in question joint with other three plots and all four plots were allotted to their father on 22.04.1973 and najrana amount of Rs.225/- has deposited by the father. Later on for all four plots 16X10 feet land was found in excessive possession, hence revised patta issued on 14.10.1989 and collectively najrana of Rs.4515/- was deposited by defendant No.1. In fact, out of four plots, one plot was allotted in the name of their father and three plots in the name of his three major sons other three sons were minor at the time of allotment. all four plots are adjoining to each other surrounded by common compound wall and joint property of the family. No material of plaintiff is lying on plot in ques