1. This appeal has been filed at the instance of defendant assailing the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned First Appellate Court partly decreeing the plaintiffs suit by reversing the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court dismissing the suit.

2. Looking to the substantial question of law which has been framed the facts necessary for the disposal of this second appeal lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration of Bhumiswami right and permanent injunction in respect of certain agricultural land, the description whereof is mentioned in the plaint and which is subject matter of the suit.

3. According to the plaintiff he is possessing the suit property for last 15 years prior to the date of filing of the suit which was filed on 3.6.1982. The defendant was in need of money to pay the debt of one Cheetarlal, resultantly, he (defendant Puralal) obtained a sum of Rs. 16,000/- from plaintiff and orally sold the land in question to him. The possession of the suit property was also handed over to the plaintiff. Since then, the plaintiff is possessing the suit propetty as owner in the knowledge of the defendant continuously without any interruption and hence he has acquired Bhumiswami right by adverse possession. Further it has been pleaded by the plaintiff that defendant was convicted in a murder case and he was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. But the suit property throughout remained in possession of the plaintiff. After serving out the entire sentence, the defendant came out from the jail but with an intention to take possession by illegal means, he tried to dispossess the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit has been filed for declaration of Bhumiswami right and injunction.

4. The defendant by filing written statement refuted the plaint averments and denied the factum of selling the suit property by an oral sale for a consideration of Rs. 16,000/- in favour of plaintiff. It has also been emphatically denied that plaintiff has perfected his Bhumiswami right by adverse possession on the suit property. According to the defendant although he is possessing suit property, but the plaintiff in collusion with the Police personnel got the suit property attached in the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and the possession was given to receiver Premsingh who is his relative. Not only this, the plaintiff in collusion with the Patwari got his name endorsed in the column of the possession in the revenue record. Hence, it has been prayed by the defendant that the suit be dismissed.

5. The learned Trial Court on the basis of averments made in the plaint and the denial in the written statement framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit by holding that plaintiff has not perfected his Bhumiswami right by adverse possession.

6. The first appeal was filed by plaintiff has been partly allowed by the learned First Appellate Court and decreed his suit in part by passing a decree of permanent injunction.

7. In this manner, this second appeal has been filed by the defendant assailing the judgment and decree passed by learned First Appellate Court.

8. This Court on 23.9.1998 admitted the second appeal on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the appellate Court below erred in law in granting decree for permanent injunction even when as per plaintiff’s own showing the land is in possession of the receiver appointed in pursuance of an order passed by the S.D.M. U/s. 146 of Cr.P.C.”?

9. The contention of Shri Bhagwansingh, learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant is that learned First Appellate Court erred in substantial error of law in passing the decree of injunction in favour of plaintiff. According to learned Counsel the suit property was in possession of the receiver in a proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and if that would be the position, in absence of seeking relief of possession the suit cannot be decreed since it is hit by Section 3