JUDGMENT :

1. This civil second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants (for brevity, the defendants”) against the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur (for brevity, the learned Appellate Court”) in Civil Regular Appeal No.1/2018(33/2018) (NCV No.33/2018) whereby, while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondents, the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jamwaramghar, Jaipur District, Jaipur (for brevity, the trial Court) dismissing the Civil Original Suit No.80/2017(159/2007), have been reversed and the suit for permanent injunction has been decreed.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents-Shri Kajod Mal Meena (“plaintiff”) filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants stating therein that he was issued a patta of the subject land admeasuring 204 Sq. Yards by the Gram Panchayat Bhawani on which he was residing with his family raising construction of a residential house. Alleging that the defendants were trying to encroach upon the land of his plot, he filed the suit for decree as aforesaid. During its pendency, he filed amended suit stating therein that despite interim order of the Court, the defendants have encroached upon a part of his land.

3. The defendants in their joint written statement submitted that the plaintiff has obtained patta fraudulently. It was averred that no house of the plaintiff exists on 204 Sq. Yards of land as claimed. Any encroachment on his land was denied by them.

4. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned trial Court framed seven issues including relief. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 31.05.2018 holding that the plaintiff could not establish his possession over the entire subject land prior to filing of the suit. The civil first appeal preferred thereagainst by the plaintiff has been allowed by the learned Appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 07.12.2021 and the suit has been decreed.

5. Assailing the impugned judgment and decree, learned counsel for the defendants, inviting attention of this Court towards the averments of the plaint and statements of the plaintiff-Kajod Mal Meena (PW-1) and his witness Shri Jagdish Narayan Meena (PW-2), would submit that the plaintiff did not specify the portion which was in his possession and which the defendants have encroached upon and further that the plaintiff has failed to establish his possession over the subject land at the time he filed the suit. Learned counsel submitted that to get the decree of permanent injunction, it was obligatory for the plaintiff to have established his possession over the entire subject property prior to filing of the suit in which he miserably failed. He submitted that in absence of possession, no decree of injunction could have been passed. He, in support of his submissions, relied upon following judgments:

(1) Sebastiao Luis Fernandes (Dead) through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. K.V.P. Shastri (Dead) through Lrs. & Ors.: 2014(1) WLC (SC) Civil 158.

(2) Dhanraj Vs. The State of Rajasthan Through the Collector, Hanumangarh: 2017(2) WLC (Raj.) UC 723.

(3) Radheshyam Son of Shri Kanhaiyalal & Ors. Vs. Shri Keshar Dev & Ors.: 2023(1) WLC 272(Raj.)

6. Further, relying upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Sebastiao Luis Fernandes (Dead) through Lrs. & Ors. (supra), he submitted that in its second appellate jurisdiction, the High Court can interfere even with concurrent findings of fact if the same are based on no evidence or have been recorded ignoring material evidence whereas, the present case involves reversal of findings of fact by the learned Appellate Court. He, therefore, prayed that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2021 be quashed and set aside and the judgment and decree dat