Judgment Dinesh Maheshwari, J.—The Civil Original Suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants on 31.08.1996 seeking declaration and perpetual injunction against the defendants-respondents with the averments that the defendants were unauthorisedly interfering with their possession on the property in dispute was put to trial, after the defendants stated in their written statement that the plaintiffs were not related with the land in dispute that has been allotted to the defendant No.1 (Headmaster, Govt. Upper Primary School, Jogpur) by the Collector, Dungarpur on 21.12.1977 for the purpose of the playground, on the following issues:- ß1- vk;k oknhx.k izfroknhx.k ds fo:¼ bl vkÓk; dh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa fd izfroknhx.k oknxzLr fjgk;Ókh edku o cxhps ds dCts ds mi;ksx] miHkksx esa dksbZ :dkoV Lo;a vFkok fdlh vU; ds ekQZr vojks/k vkfn ds :i esa iSnk ugha djsa\&oknh 2- vk;k oknhx.k mä oknxzLr fjgk;Ókh edku cxhps ds Lo;a ds LokfeRo gksus laca/kh ?kks"k.kk djokus ds vf/kdkjh gS\&oknhx.k 3- vk;k nkok vUnj E;kn ugha gS\&izfroknhx.k 4- vk;k oknhx.k us dCtk ysus ckcr~ nkok ugha fd;k gS] bldk nkos ij D;k vlj gS\&izfroknhx.k 5- vk;k oknxzLr tehu jktLo tehu gksus ls bl U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj dk ugha gS\ 6- vk;k izfroknhx.k /kkjk 35, tk-nh- ds rgr foÓks"k gtkZ 2]000@& #i;s izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\&izfroknhx.k 7- vuqrks"kAÞ 2. After taking the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sagwara proceeded to decide the questions involved in the matter by the impugned judgment dt. 03.03.2003. The learned Judge held in issue No.5 that the disputed property was an agriculture land and only the Revenue Court had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. After appreciation of evidence, in issues Nos. 1 & 2, the learned Judge held that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their entitlement over the land in question and found proved the fact that the land in question was allotted to the defendant No.1 by the Collector, Dungarpur for the purpose of playground; in issue No.3 held the suit to be barred by limitation; and in issue No.6 considered it appropriate to award Rs.1,000/- as special costs to the defendants. Accordingly, the learned trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit with such costs. 3. The learned District Judge, Dungarpur has considered and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs (Civil Appeal No. 4/2003) by the impugned judgment and decree dt. 23.05.2007. Accordingly, the learned trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit with such costs. 3. The learned District Judge, Dungarpur has considered and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs (Civil Appeal No. 4/2003) by the impugned judgment and decree dt. 23.05.2007. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants that the trial Court has erred in ignoring the Commissioner’s report dt. 05.09.2001 and in not considering that the appellants were in possession of the suit property having their residential houses thereat; and it was also urged that in view of the finding on issue No.5 when the land in question was treated to be an agriculture land, the learned trial Court ought to have been returned the plaint. 4. The learned appellate Judge has observed in issue No.5, that the land in question was used for abadi purposes and was not a land subject to land revenue. The learned appellate Judge has found that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their case of possession on the land in question for 30 years. The learned appellate Judge has also observed that the land was allotted by the Collector, Dungarpur in the name of the school as back as on 21.12.1977 and hence, the present suit filed only on 31.08.1996 was barred by limitation; and has also endorsed the decision of the learned trial Court allowing special costs to the defendants. 5. Seeking to assail the judgment and decree aforesaid, the plaintiffs have filed this second appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants have strenuously contended that when the suit was found to be not of the jurisdiction of the civil Court, the plaint was required to be returned and the trial Court was not right in dismissing the suit. Learned counsel have referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Auto Engineering Works vs. Bansal Trading Company & Ors., RLW 2000 (3) SC 422 and submitted that when the trial Court found the matter to be not of its jurisdiction, the plaint ought to have been returned. It is also submitted that the possession of the plaintiff on the land in question is clearly established on record and the Commissioner’s report fortify the case of the plaintiffs about their possession on the land in question. 6. It is also submitted that the possession of the plaintiff on the land in question is clearly established on record and the Commissioner’s report fortify the case of the plaintiffs about their possession on the land in question. 6. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel, this Court is unable to find any substantial question of law worth consideration in this case. 7. The questions relating to jurisdiction and the requirement of return of plaint have been raised by the plaintiff-appellants rather in a self-defeating manner. The plaintiffs have filed the suit before the civil Court treating it to be a matter cognizable by the civil Court. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that the land in question was an agriculture land and that cognizance of the suit by the civil Court was barred by any law. The learned appellate Court has recorded the finding that the land in question is not an agriculture land but is being used for abadi purposes. The case of Auto Engineering Works (supra) where the trial Court found the matter to be not of its territorial jurisdiction but did not return the plaint, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the trial Court ought to have returned the plaint for presentation to the proper forum, is of no application to the present case. Herein, the finding of the appellate Court makes it clear that the objection regarding want of jurisdiction itself stands decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. There was no occasion thereafter to consider return of the plaint. 8. So far the questions relating to possession are concerned, it remains a finding of fact that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their possession on the land in question; and such finding on the question of possession remains a valid finding of fact returned after appreciation of evidence and the appellant has failed to show any perversity so as to warrant interference in second appeal. The Commissioner’s report could not have been treated as conclusive proof of the possession of the plaintiffs; and on the contrary, it has been found by the subordinate Courts that the plaintiffs have failed to adduce any cogent evidence towards their title and possession; and it has also been found, contrary to the case of the plaintiffs, that the land had been allotted for school purposes about 19 years before filing of the suit. 9. In the aforesaid view of the matter, there appears no reason to consider any interference in this matter at the instance of the appellants. 10. The second appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily.