JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant. 2. By this second appeal, the plaintiff appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 20th July, 2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Malpura, District Tonk in Civil Regular Appeal No. 9/2006 dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 3rd May, 2006 passed by Civil Judge (JD) Todaraisingh, District Tonk in Civil Suit No. 12/2002 whereby the civil suit of the plaintiff appellant for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants, has been dismissed. 3. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff appellant filed a civil suit against the defendant-respondents and sought a decree for permanent injunction on the basis of his possession over the disputed land since his ancestors with the further averments that the land, on which the house has been constructed, has been converted into abadi land and the Municipal Board had made up its mind to issue Patta in the names of defendant Nos. 1 to 3, therefore, the defendants be restrained from interfering in his possession, use and occupation on the land shown in yellow colour in the map and further not to issue any Patta in favour of the defendants. 4. Defendant respondents No. 1 to 3 filed their written statement submitting therein that the land in dispute is in joint khatedari and is not partitioned. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 denied ⅓ share of the plaintiff in the said land and it was submitted that the plaintiff has developed ill-will and in absence of the defendants, converted the temporary fense into cemented wall. Defendant No. 5 filed written statement mentioning therein that the land stands partitioned whereas defendant respondent No. 6 claimed its right over the land in dispute being an Abadi land of Nagar Palika. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following five issues were framed. Defendant No. 5 filed written statement mentioning therein that the land stands partitioned whereas defendant respondent No. 6 claimed its right over the land in dispute being an Abadi land of Nagar Palika. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following five issues were framed. 1- vk;k oknh ds LokfeRo o vkf/kiR; dk edku iq[rk pkj nhokjh okds okMZ uEcj 20 rstkth ds pkSd ds ikl] dLck VksMkjk;flag ekfy;ksa ds eksgYys esa fLFkr gS] ftlesa oknh djhc 100 o"kksZa ls jgrk pyk vk;k gS\ 2- vk;k izfroknhx.k 1 yxk;r 4 dk edku oknh ds mDr edku ls mRrj dh rjQ vMkdj gS] izfroknhx.k oknh ds edku dh iq[rk nhokj dks rksM+dj oknh ds edku esa ?kqluk pkgrk gS o uxj ikfydk ls lktdj oknh edku dh Hkwfe esa ?kqldj mldk iV~Vk ysuk pkgrk gS] ftldk mUgsa dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gS\ 3- vk;k okni= esa iznf'kZr vkjkth oknh o izfroknh uEcj 1] 3 o 5 [kkrsnkjh dh gS vkSj fcuk fof/kor rdklek ds oknh izfroknhx.k dks ikcan djkus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS\ 4- vk;k vkjkth eqruktk Hkwfe vkcknh uxj ikfydk ds uke ntZ gSaA oknh us Hkw[k.M dk fu;eu ugha djk;k] blfy, oknh dksbZ lgr izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS\ 5- vuqrks"k\ 6. In support of the aforesaid five issues, the plaintiff appellant examined himself as PW.1, Badri PW.2 and Gopal PW.3 and also exhibited Ex.1 Jamabandi from Samvat 2051-60 and Ex.2 Commissioner's report whereas the defendants examined Ramdev DW.1 and Gokul DW.2. 7. After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence, the trial court decided issue No. 1 partly in favour of the plaintiff appellant, issue No. 2 against the plaintiff appellant, as he failed to prove the same, issue No. 3 in favour of the defendant-respondents and issue No. 4 against the defendant-respondents and while considering the relief, refused to grant injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff appellant and vide judgment and decree dated 3rd May, 2006 dismissed the civil suit considering the fact that the land in dispute is in joint khatedari of the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-respondents, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any injunction. Against this judgment and decree of the trial court, regular first appeal was filed before the first appellate court. 8. During pendency of the first appeal, defendant respondent No. 1 died. 9. Against this judgment and decree of the trial court, regular first appeal was filed before the first appellate court. 8. During pendency of the first appeal, defendant respondent No. 1 died. 9. The first appellate court considering the fact that the land in dispute is in joint khatedari of the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-respondents, dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment and decree dated 20th July, 2012. 10. Submission of counsel for the plaintiff appellant is that because of long possession of the plaintiff appellant over the land in dispute, he was entitled for injunction. 11. I have gone through the record of the second appeal and further considered the aforesaid submission of counsel for the appellant. 12. On consideration of the same, this Court is of the view that both the courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and recorded the finding that the land in dispute is joint khatedari of plaintiff and defendants which has not been partitioned between the parties so far. Therefore, the plaintiff appellant is not entitled for any injunction. The findings on the issues are concurrent findings of facts. 13. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. The second appeal has no force and the same is, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******