1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. :: J U D G M E N T :: D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W)NO.1333/2007 Gyarsa Vs. Deena & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT :: 28-01-2008 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA Mr. Rajendra Sharma, for the appellant. Mr. R.K. Goyal, for the respondent. The unsuccessful plaintiff is in appeal aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge whereby he upset the order of the Board of Revenue. Principally, the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit related to perpetual injunction and in the alternative possession. Even if, it be a suit that plaintiff has been able to establish his possession in Samvat Years 2012, 2013 and 2014, from the evidence available on record, it is apparent that defendants were shown in possession in Samvat Year 2017 and thereafter there is no revenue record indicating the possession of the plaintiff. In this view of the matter, obviously when plaintiff failed to establish his possession on the date of filing of the suit, a decree of injunction could not have been granted. In so far as alternative prayer for possession is concerned, the plaintiff failed to disclose the date on which he was dispossessed by the defendants and as a matter of fact for a period of more than 12 years before filing of the suit, plaintiff's possession has not been established. 2 In this view of the matter, the view of the Single Judge in upsetting the order of Board of Revenue cannot be flawed on facts or in law; rather the Single Judge has given solid reason for upsetting the finding of the Board of Revenue. We find no justifiable reason to take a view different from that of the Single Judge. Special appeal is dismissed in limine. [R.M.LODHA],J. [NARAYAN ROY],CJ. Praveen