JUDGMENT 1. - Instant revision petition has been filed under Section 115, C.P.C. against the judgment dated 19.07.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & Judl. Magistrate, Sardarshahar (District Churu) in Civil Original Suit No.5/1998 whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for possession is decreed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. 2. As per facts of the case, a suit for getting possession of land in dispute and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-petitioners, in which, it is stated that land in dispute is situated in village Jaitsisar Bas Dhiktaniya and patta No.9 was issued for the said land in question by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the plaintiff on 06.06.1962 and plaintiff was raising construction upon the said land but the defendant petitioners interfered in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the land in question to grab the same forcibly and made encroachment over the land. 3. According to the plaintiff, FIR was also filed in the Court but the police did not investigate the matter properly, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent made a prayer in the suit that suit may be decreed in terms of the prayer made in the suit and defendant-petitioners may be directed to restore possession of the land in question. 4. The defendant-petitioners filed their written statement in which it is stated that the land in question is in possession of petitioner No.3 Chanduram and he is in occupation of the said land and suit has not been filed with proper court-fee and is out of limitation, therefore, the same may be dismissed. 5. The trial Court on the basis of pleadings framed 7 issues and while recording evidence of both the sides decided issues No.1 and 4 in favour of respondent-plaintiff and held that the land in question is belonging to the plaintiff-respondent, therefore, he is entitled for decree in his favour for possession. Learned trial Court while giving aforesaid finding decreed the suit in favour of the respondent-plaintiff vide judgment dated 19.07.2003. 6. In this revision petition, the defendant petitioners are challenging the validity of judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 19.07.2003 passed in Civil Suit No.5/1998. 7. Learned trial Court while giving aforesaid finding decreed the suit in favour of the respondent-plaintiff vide judgment dated 19.07.2003. 6. In this revision petition, the defendant petitioners are challenging the validity of judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 19.07.2003 passed in Civil Suit No.5/1998. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the finding given by the trial Court is not justified because the evidence produced by the defendant petitioners is not properly considered for the purpose of deciding the suit, therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court on all the issues are illegal because the findings are based upon conjectures and surmises. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the trial Court has completely ignored the fact that the witnesses produced by the plaintiff respondent are belonging to one family, therefore, they are interested witnesses and on the basis of said evidence no decree can be passed for possession. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners submitted that there is complete perversity in the finding of the trial Court because the trial Court has decided issues in favour of the plaintiff-respondent without critically examining the citations placed before the Court, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court may be quashed. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently submits that admittedly the plaintiff respondent proved its case before the Court that he belongs to Scheduled Cast community ahnd patta was issued by Gram Panchayat Jaitsisar Bas Dhiktaniya on 06.06.1962 and defendant-petitioners forcibly dispossessed him on 14.11.1992 and this fact is proved before the trial Court by the respondent plaintiff, therefore, there is no force in the contention of Chanduram that he purchased the said land upon consideration of Rs. 1600/-, therefore, he is in possession. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the finding given by the trial Court is based upon evidence of 10 witnesses produced by the plaintiff-respondent in his favour and after producing valid patta before the trial Court, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree does not require any interference. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have examined entire record of the case; more specifically, the finding given by the trial Court which is based upon evidence of 10 witnesses including court commissioner Rajendra Prasad Rajpurohit, P.W.-10 who gave correct position of the site before the Court. 12. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have examined entire record of the case; more specifically, the finding given by the trial Court which is based upon evidence of 10 witnesses including court commissioner Rajendra Prasad Rajpurohit, P.W.-10 who gave correct position of the site before the Court. 12. In my opinion, when documentary evidence which is patta issued in favour of the plaintiff respondent is not disputed by the defendant petitioners and plaintiff-respondent proved his case beyond reasonable doubt that he was in possession till 14.11.1992 and thereafter he was forcibly dispossessed from the property in question, then, there is no question for interfering in the finding given by the trial Court. 13. In the opinion of this Court, no illegality or jurisdictional error has been committed by the trial Court in passing decree in favour of the plaintiff respondent. Upon perusal of the entire facts and evidence on record as well as finding given by the trial Court, in my considered opinion, no legal question emerges for consideration in this revision petition. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the judgment and decree impugned.Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******