Hon'ble MAHESHWARI, J.—On or about 22.07.1980, the respondent No.5 Sukha Ram filed a suit against the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and the predecessor of the petitioners Nos. 3/1 to 3/8 for declaration and perpetual injunction in relation to the land comprised in Khasra No. 411 at village Roopawaton-Ka-Bera, Kaliberi, Tehsil and District Jodhpur essentially on the submissions that earlier the land admeasured 22 bighas and 12 biswas but, for a road having been constructed on its western side on an old existing way, 19 bighas and 8 biswas thereof remained in his possession; and on the allegations that the defendants threatened to dispossess him from a part of the land in question. It appears that later on, the plaintiff got the suit amended by adding the prayer for recovery of possession while alleging that on 20.10.1981, the defendants had unauthorisedly taken over possession of 10 bighas of the said land by shifting the boundary wall of their adjoining land. The plaintiff, inter alia, prayed for declaration of his khatedari rights over 19 bighas and 8 biswas of the said land comprised in khasra No. 411 and for recovery of possession of 10 bighas of land.

2. The defendants put the suit to the contention while challenging the title documents of the plaintiff and with the submissions that they were in possession of the land in question since generations; that the plaintiff had never cultivated the same; and that they had acquired the rights over the land in question by way of adverse possession.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues for determination of the questions involved in the case whereupon did the parties adduce the respective oral and documentary evidence:-

^^1- vk;k oknh [ksr [k-ua- 411 jdck 19 ch?kk 8 fcLok okds xzke ckxk rglhy] tks/kiqj dk [kkrsnkj fVusUV gS\ ftEes oknh

2- vk;k izfroknhx.k us fooknxzLr [kljk dh 10 ch?kk Hkwfe tks okn ds lkFk izLrqr uD'ks ds nl[kr ls yky jax ls vafdr gS ij fnukad 20-10-81 dks vukf/k—r dCtk dj fy;k\ ftEes oknh

3- vk;k oknh fo:) izfroknh fu"ks/kkKk dh fMØh ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\

ftEes oknh

4- vk;k izfroknh dk fooknxzLr Hkwfe 10 ch?kk ij dCtk eq[kkyQkuk gks pqdk gS\ ftEes izfroknh

5- vk;k fooknxzLr Hkwfe 10 ch?kk dkfcy dk'r ugha gksus ls rFkk dnheh iM+r gksus ls oknh dks [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gks ldrs\ ftEes izfroknh

6- vk;k oknh dks [k-ua- 411 dh ckihnkjk izkIr djus ls iwoZ dCtk xyr Fkk ftlesa [k-ua- 411 dh Hkwfe 'kkfey ugha Fkh o u jklrk dk ckih iÍk vFkok [kkrsnkjh dkuwuu nh tk ldrh Fkh\ ftEes izfroknh

7- vk;k [kljk uEcj 411 laor~ 2000 ls 2035 rd dnheh iM+r jgk gS\

ftEes izfroknh

8- nknjlh D;k gS\ <span>

4. It appears from the material placed on record that earlier the suit was dismissed on 26.06.1989 but a review application was allowed on 25.07.1989 and the suit was taken up rehearing. However, ultimately, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff on merits by its judgment and decree dated 27.07.1989 (Annex.1). Though the learned Trial Court found the plaintiff having khatedari rights in relation to the land in question but observed that the parties were not aware of the true boundaries of their respective khatedari land; and that although the defendants failed to establish their adverse possession but the plaintiff also failed to establish that the defendants dispossessed him only on 20.10.1981.

5. The plaintiff took an appeal against the judgment and decree so passed by the learned Trial Court (Appeal No. 233/1989) before the Revenue Appellate Authority-II, Jodhpur ('the RAA') wherein the defendants also preferred their crossobjections (No. 516/1989). The learned RAA, by the judgment and decree dated 30.01.1991 (Annex.2), while endorsing the findings of the learned Trial Court on the relevant issues and holding that the plaintiff-appellant failed to establish if he was dispossessed on 20.10.1981, observed that the learned Trial Court refused to recognise the adverse possession of the defendants without any just