JUDGMENT 1. - This D.B. Civil Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment delivered by learned Single Judge dated 2.4.2002 in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 14/1983 affirming the judgment and decree passed by Addl. District Judge, Udaipur dated 23.10.1982 In Civil Suit No. 5/76. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a civil suit was filed by appellant-plaintiff - Liquidator, Shree Bhopal Cooperative Society Limited, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff-society) against respondent -defendant Udaipur Lohakala Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Limited, Nehru Bazar, Udaipur (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'defendant Lohakala Utpadak'). The case of the plaintiff-society In the suit was that a patta was granted by the Mewar State on 24.12.1956 in respect of land situated in Girwa Tehsil bearing Khasra Nos. 213 and 982 in favour of the plaintiff-society but when the respondent defendant Lohakala Utpadak started digging the land of the plaintiff-society, a suit was filed for injunction in the year 1970, which was later on withdrawn after 4 years as the defendant Lohakala Utpadak had made construction over the disputed land and the present suit No. 5/76 was filed for possession. 3. The defendant Lohakala Utpadak, in the written statement pleaded that the land bearing Khasra No. 982 was 39 bighas and 17 biswas but as per the claim of the plaintiff-society, the total land allotted to it was 18 bighas and 19 biswas which has not been identified out of the said land as the land allotted to it. It was further stated by defendant Lohakala Utpadak in the written statement that the District Collector, Udaipur vide order dated 17.11.1965 set apart 12 bighas and 5 biswas of land of Khasra No. 982 under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and out of this land handed over 4 acres of land to defendant Lohakala Utpadak after its allotment, so the plaintiff has no right or title In relation to the disputed land. 4. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 23.10.1982 holding that the plaintiff-society was not able to prove its case at all. It was further held that the plaintiff-society could not identify the land in possession of defendant Lohakala Utpadak to be of the plaintiff-society as the plaintiff-society failed to prove the title over the land which is in possession of defendant Lohakala Utpadak. 5. It was further held that the plaintiff-society could not identify the land in possession of defendant Lohakala Utpadak to be of the plaintiff-society as the plaintiff-society failed to prove the title over the land which is in possession of defendant Lohakala Utpadak. 5. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 23.10.1982, S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 14/1983 was filed, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, vide judgment dated 2.4.2002, hence the present appeal has been filed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant society at the admission stage. 7. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the learned Single Judge has not properly considered the matter particularly when the plaintiff-society was able to prove its case on the basis of the evidence led by it before the trial Court. It has next been contended that the plaintiff-society was allotted the land in question by the State of Mewar and the defendant Lohakala Utpadak encroached upon the land of the plaintiff-society therefore the suit for possession was filed on the basis of a Patta issued in favour of the plaintiff-society by the State of Mewar, as such, the suit was liable to be decreed by the learned trial Court. In the last, it has been submitted that on the basis of title, plaintiff-society is entitled for possession of the disputed land. According to the learned counsel, the learned trial Court as well as Ape learned Single Judge both illegally dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-society, therefore, the appeal deserves to be admitted and accepted and the suit for possession is liable to be decreed. 8. We have considered the submissions made before us by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant. 9. A perusal of the judgment and decree, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-society was dismissed, and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 2.4.2002, indicate clearly that there is no merit in this appeal for the reason that before the learned trial Court the plaintiff-society filed the suit through Liquidator but he did not appear in the witness box as PW-1 to prove the case. PW-1 in this case was an Accountant and was not aware as to what was the case. The documents tendered in evidence before the trial Court could not establish as to which property allotted to the plaintiff-society was encroached upon. Issue Nos. PW-1 in this case was an Accountant and was not aware as to what was the case. The documents tendered in evidence before the trial Court could not establish as to which property allotted to the plaintiff-society was encroached upon. Issue Nos. 1 & 2 were in relation to the land in dispute and the plaintiff's claim for possession thereof. Both the issues were decided against the plaintiff-society in absence of evidence led by plaintiff-society. The learned Single Judge, while deciding the appeal has clearly observed that no illegality was found in the findings recorded by the trial Court while deciding Issue Nos. 1 & 2. The submissions of the learned counsel that the trial Court has not Properly appreciated the matter and while deciding Issue Nos. 1 & 2 against plaintiff-society and learned single Judge erred in upholding the impugned judgment and decree in view of the fact that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff-appellant was sufficient to prove the case of the plaintiff-society and the plaintiff-society was entitled for decree of possession, have no substance in view of the fact that before the learned trial Court plaintiff-society was required to prove that the disputed land was allotted to it and same was encroached upon by defendant Lohakala Utpadak and construction over the land of the plaintiff-society was made by defendant Lohakala Utpadak, which has not been proved as discussed by the trial Court while deciding Issue No. 1 & 2 against the plaintiff-society, particularly when the Liquidator of the society, who filed the suit, has not appeared as witness in the case and the evidence of PW-1 in this case, who is an Accountant and is not aware about the material facts of the case, has been examined. The learned trial Court found that the plaintiff-society was not able to identify the land said to have been encroached upon by the defendant to be of the plaintiff-society. Before the learned trial Court, even the copies of the earlier suit, which was withdrawn, were not filed. The plaintiff's witness PW-1 (An Accountant of the Society) admitted in his statement that at the time of alleged encroachment by defendant Lohakala Utpadak, he was not in the society and further at the time when the possession of the land was given to the society, he was not in the society. The plaintiff's witness PW-1 (An Accountant of the Society) admitted in his statement that at the time of alleged encroachment by defendant Lohakala Utpadak, he was not in the society and further at the time when the possession of the land was given to the society, he was not in the society. Thus, it appears that the statement of this witness is not sufficient to establish that the land in dispute, said to be in possession of defendant Lohakala Utpadak, was of the plaintiff-society. The plaintiff-society in this case failed to prove the title of the disputed land in its name, said to be possessed by the defendant Lohakala Utpadak, then the suit filed by the plaintiff-society was not liable to be decreed and the, learned trial Court has correctly dismissed the suit. The averments In the written statement of defendant Lohakala Utpadak were to the effect that in the earlier suit withdrawn by the plaintiff-society was in relation to some different land and inspite of specific averments no copy of earlier injunction suit was filed before the trial Court. 10. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******