JUDGMENT :

1. This civil second appeal, which is reported to be time barred by 43 days, is accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity, “the Act of 1963”).

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay in preferring the civil second appeal is condoned.

3. This civil second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Hindaun City (Karauli-Rajasthan) (for brevity, “the learned Appellate Court”) in Original Civil Appeal No.99/2012 (151/11) whereby, while dismissing the appeal, the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shri Mahavirji, District Karauli (Rajasthan) (for brevity, “the learned trial Court”) dismissing the Civil Case No.94/2001 [old 203/95 (141/98)] filed by the appellant-plaintiff (for brevity, “the plaintiff”) for permanent injunction, have been affirmed.

4. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants (for brevity, “the defendants”) stating therein that there is a residential plot measuring 80ft. X 190ft. situated in village Gudhachandra Ji under its ownership and possession. Alleging that the defendants wanted to encroach upon the subject land, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for.

5. The defendants no.1 to 4 in their joint written statement admitted that some construction material of the plaintiff was lying in the subject plot. It was, however, submitted that the defendant no.5 has, claiming the same to be under his ownership and possession, offered to sell the same to them.

6. The defendant no.5 in his written statement, denying the averments made in the plaint, submitted that though, the subject land was under the ownership of Gram Panchayat Gudhachandra Ji; but, was under his possession.

7. The defendant no.6 in its written statement submitted that the subject property was under its ownership and possession.

8. The defendant no.7 in its written statement submitted that the subject land, a part of Sivay Chak Land, has been allotted to it by the defendant no.6 vide letter dated 13.04.1996 after setting it apart by the Revenue Authorities.

9. The plaintiff in its rejoinder, denying the averments made by the defendants in their respective written statements, reiterated the averments made in the plaint.

10. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned trial Court framed four issues. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 22.10.2011 and the civil first appeal preferred thereaginst by the plaintiff has also been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decreed dated 08.09.2016.

11. Assailing the impugned judgment and decree, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the findings of the learned Courts are against the preponderance of probabilities in its favour. He submits that the learned Courts did not appreciate that it was able to establish from the evidence on record that the subject land was under its ownership and possession. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2016 be quashed and set aside and the suit be decreed.

12. Heard. Considered.

13. While dismissing the suit, the learned trial Court has held that the plaintiff miserably failed to establish that the subject land was under its ownership and possession. It was held that while, the plaintiff Shri Gangadhar Mudgal claimed in the pleading the subject property to be under his ownership; but, during the course of his evidence as PW-1, he has stated that it was gifted on 17.05.1972 by Thakur Balbhadra Singh to the Brahmin Samaj; but, this fact also could not be established from any evidence on record; rather, from the ocular as also documentary evidence available on record, since, it was established that prior t