ORDER :

Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - The appellant/plaintiff (for brevity, "the plaintiff") filed a Civil Suit No.6/2006 for permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants (for brevity, "the defendants") which came to be dismissed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Fatehpur District Sikar (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") vide its judgement and decree dated 21.05.2015 and the appeal preferred thereagainst bearing no.64/2016 (45/2015) has also been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Fatehpur District Sikar (for brevity, "the learned appellate Court") vide its judgement and decree dated 08.03.2019.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit with the averments that his residential accommodation measuring 47 feet X 30 feet as described in Para No.1 of the plaint is situated in Khasra No.609/06, New Ward No.19 Near Railway Station in Town Ramgarh. It was averred that he acquired its ownership through a relinquishment deed executed by Shri Kurdaram son of Shri Laxman, its erstwhile khatedar. It was alleged that the defendants no.2 and 3 have served a notice dated 29.11.2001 upon him seeking his dispossession from the subject property without any legal authority. Thus, a decree of permanent injunction was prayed for. The defendants no.2 and 3 in their joint written statement, denying the averments of the plaint, submitted that the subject land was neither in the khatedari of the plaintiff nor, was part of Khasra No.609/06; rather, it was part of Khasra No.609/02 recorded in the khatedari of the defendant no.3-Nagar Palika, Ramgarh. It was stated that the plaintiff is in the habit of encroaching upon this land and in the past also, encroachment made by him over the subject land was removed.

3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, four issues were settled.

4. The learned trial Court after recording evidence of the respective parties, dismissed the suit vide its judgement and decree dated 21.05.2015 which has been upheld and affirmed by the learned appellate Court vide its judgement and decree dated 08.03.2019.

5. Assailing the impugned judgement and decree, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Courts erred in failing to appreciate that he was able to prove his title and possession over the subject land from the oral as also documentary evidence. Referring to the Commissioner Report (Ex. 15), learned counsel submits that his peaceful possession over the subject property was well established and the suit being for injunction simplicitor, he was entitled for the decree of permanent injunction. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgement and decree dated 08.03.2019 be quashed and set aside and the suit filed by him be decreed.

6. Heard. Considered.

7. While dismissing the suit, the learned trial Court has recorded a finding on the basis of evidence on record that the plaintiff miserably failed to establish that the subject land was part of Khasra No.609/06 and/or was under his khatedari. With regard to relinquishment deed, a finding has been recorded that it is an unregistered document and is not admissible in evidence. It has also been held on the basis of documentary evidence submitted by the defendants no.2 and 3 that the subject land was part of Khasra No.609/02 measuring 0.63 hectare and was in the khatedari of Nagar Palika, Ramgarh. It has also been held that the plaintiff is in the habit of encroaching upon the subject land which has been removed in past also by the defendant no.3. The aforesaid findings have been affirmed by the learned appellate Court. This Court has also examined the evidence on record. Even the plaintiff as PW 1