1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : J U D G M E N T : S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.445/2006. (Baba Abdul Jabbar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another) DATE OF JUDGMENT : August 12, 2009. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS ____________________________________ Mr. Usman Ghani for the appellant. BY THE COURT : Instant second appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 100, C.P.C. against judgment and decree dated 26.07.2006 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Nagore in Civil Original Appeal No.4/2002, whereby, while dismissing the appeal, learned first appellate Court confirmed the finding on issue No.1 and 2 arrived at by the trial Court and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Nagore in Civil Original Suit No.42/1995. 2 Brief facts of the case are that a suit was filed by the appellant-plaintiff in the capacity of “gaddinashin and muntjim” of Dargah Rajjiuddin Saheb in the trial Court for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that decree for declaration may be passed that land and building on which the dargah and its building is situated is the property of the dargah and dargah is having ownership of the said land and building. Further, it is prayed that the respondents may be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession over the land and building of the dargah. Suit was filed in the year 1995, in which, assertion was made that dargah is in existence for last 700 years and, till now, there was no problem in use and peaceful possession of the dargah; but, lately, residents of the near-by area are trying to interfere there, therefore, decree for declaration and permanent injunction may be issued in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that late Shri Rajiuddin Saheb was son-in-law of Garib Nawaj Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti, Ajmer and since last 700 years the said dargah is situated in the area in question, therefore, declaration is required to be made in favour of the appellant-plaintiff and in the revenue record also 3 necessary corrections may be ordered to be made while entering the name of dargah. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that by way of filing documentary evidence, it was proved before the trial Court that the dargah is in existence for last 700 years but the trial Court discredited the evidence of documents furnished before the Court and rejected the testimony of those documents on the ground that they were not properly filed. It is further submitted that the trial Court, during the trial, rejected the application of the plaintiff filed under Order 13 Rule 2, C.P.C. which were pamphlets booklets of “salana Urs”, therefore, the trial Court has committed a grave error while holding that the appellant has failed to prove his case. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, so also, perused the judgments rendered by the appellate Court as well as trial Court. Admittedly, upon perusal of the plaint, it is revealed that plaintiff-appellant has sought declaration for the land situated in the revenue area of Nagore city, khasra 123, rakaba 3 biswa; khasra 122, rakaba 2 bigha; and, khasra 124, rakaba 1 biswa; but, before the 4 learned trial Court no sufficient documentary evidence was produced to show that plaintiff-appellant is having any right over the land whereas the respondent State has proved before the Court that the land in question is belonging to the State Government, and, the land area in question is comprised of a water pond and catchment area and, besides, there is a crematorium place. In this view of the matter, when, in the revenue record, the land in question is entered as catchment area of the water pond and cremation place, then, the appellant's plea with regard to seeking declaration has rightly been rejected by the trial Court and, so also, rightly upheld by the first appellate Court. In my opinion, upon the finding of fact arrived at by both the Courts below, no question of law emerges for consideration in this second appeal because admittedly the land in question is government land and is entered as government land in the revenue record. As such there is no force in this appeal. Hence, this second appeal is dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.