JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 27.08.2011 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Pali Head Quarter Jaitaran, whereby, judgment and decree dated 19.01.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bar, District Pali has been set aside. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: the plaintiff Kesa Ram filed a suit for permanent, mandatory and prohibitory injunction against the defendants, inter alia, with the averments that at village Raipur in front of Bus Stand defendant Nos. 2 and 3 proposed a residential colony, wherein, the plaintiff along with other persons purchased residential plots; for getting into the said residential colony from the main road, a 12 ft. wide road exists, where after, the road is 15ft. wide and filed a site map along with the suit; it was claimed that the road was being used by the plaintiff and other persons from the time the plots were purchased by them; the road was indicated in the registered sale deeds relating to the said plots and from the said road the water pipe lines have been placed for getting into the colony; the road was the only main road to get into the colony; however, the defendants were bent upon closing the said way and to sell the said land; the defendant No. 1 placed a cabin on the said road on 08.09.2002 resulting in blocking the road for the purpose of ingress and egress of vehicles; on being asked to clear the road, the defendants threatened to sell the land and closed the road; it was claimed that if the road is closed, then the residents of the colony would suffer and would be deprived of the main road; the defendants were not entitled to sell the said land; ultimately, it was prayed that the defendants be restrained from raising construction on the road, sell the same and be restrained from interfering in the use whereof along with mandatory injunction for removal of the cabin and, in case the land is sold, injunction against the Sub Registrar from registering the same and for the purpose of restoring the way. 3. A written statement was filed by the defendant Nos. 3. A written statement was filed by the defendant Nos. 2 and 3; it was claimed that the land in question was agricultural land and the defendants have sold the Khatedari rights to the plaintiff and defendant; the averments regarding residential colony and selling of plots were denied; it was claimed that the plots for shops had already been demarcated and foundations were filled, which were from before the land was sold to the plaintiff; the existence of the way was denied and it was claimed that the disputed place was a plot for shop; the suit was not maintainable in absence of notice under Section 80 CPC; no cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff; the suit was barred by law under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Tenancy Act'); ultimately, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. The trial court framed four issues; on behalf of the plaintiff four witnesses were examined and six documents were exhibited; on behalf of the defendants four witnesses were examined and four documents were exhibited. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that as the plaintiff has not produced any document from the State Government or competent court sanctioning the suit land as road, he has failed to prove that the road exists; in view of the finding on issue No. 1, the plaintiff was not entitled to seek permanent injunction and also came to the conclusion that as the suit land was revenue land, the civil court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit and, consequently, dismissed the suit. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed first appeal under Section 96 CPC. 7. The first appellate court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that from the material available on record the existence of road was proved and the so called plot No. 33, which the plaintiff claims qua the suit property is situated inside the colony and the finding recorded by the trial court in this regard was not legal; the first appellate court also came to the conclusion that despite the fact that the suit property has not been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural, in view of the fact that the same was being used for non-agricultural purposes, small plots of land have already been demarcated and roads etc. have been provided along with pipe lines for water have already been put, the civil court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter and in view of its findings on issue No. 1, the decree passed by the trial court was set aside and the suit was decreed with a permanent injunction against the defendants not to obstruct the disputed way and not to interfere in plaintiff's use of the land in question and not to sell the same to anyone. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the finding recorded by the first appellate court while reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is ex facie against the record and besides the above the reversal of finding regarding the jurisdiction of the civil court is also ex facie against the settled position of law and, therefore the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court cannot be sustained and the appeal give rise to substantial questions of law. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment passed by the first appellate court and submitted that the findings recorded by the trial court were essentially without any basis and the first appellate court based on the documentary evidence has reached a valid conclusion and the appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law. 10. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below along with record of both the courts below. 11. 10. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below along with record of both the courts below. 11. From a bare perusal of the site map produced by the defendants and marked as Exhibit-A/1, it is apparent that the land in question has been divided into various plots, inter alia, ad measuring 26'x40' and certain plots have been indicated as shops; the defendants claimed that the disputed portion of land, which is situated in between the road inside the colony and the main road was plot No. 33 and was in fact a shop; the documents Exhibits-5 and 6, which are sale deeds executed by the defendants in favour of various plot holders of the said residential colony and the maps enclosed therewith tells a totally different story as in the said sale deeds, the plot No. 33 has been shown in between plot No. 30 and plot No. 35, whereas, in the site map Exhibit-A/1 the plot No. 33 has been indicated at the disputed site, which appears to be wholly against the registered documents Exhibits-5 and 6. 12. The first appellate court based on its analysis of the documents rightly came to the conclusion that the plot No. 33, which has been indicated at the disputed site, is in fact situated inside the colony and the said disputed land was not plot No. 33 as claimed; further, a bare look at the site map Exhibit-A/1 clearly shows that the disputed land was the only link from the main road to the road leading to plaintiff's plot and mere existence of other alternative roads cannot be a reason to assume that the road situated on the north of plaintiff's plot was not getting connecting to the main road. 13. 13. So far as the claim of appellants that the suit property was agriculture in nature and, therefore, the suit before the civil court was not maintainable, suffice it to notice that in the site map the plaintiff himself has shown the demarcation of the land in various plots having roads cross crossing the entire land and has also shown demarcation of shops on the said land and, therefore, to raise objection regarding maintainability of the suit before the civil court appears to be only a exercise to deprive the plaintiff from getting the relief and to continue with his attempt to act against the interests of the plaintiff and the other plot holders. The first appellate court has rightly come to the conclusion that the suit was maintainable before the civil court.In view of the above, the findings recorded by the first appellate court do not give rise to any substantial question of law.Consequently, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******