JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - Both these present second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been filed by the appellant-defendant-RSEB against the judgment and decree dated 23.10.1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in respective Civil First Appeal Nos. 19/1984 "RSEB v. Darshna Devi" and No. 15/1984 "RSEB v. Korchand" by which, he affirmed the judgments and decrees dated 07.08.1984 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Hanumangarh respectively in Civil Original Suit Nos. 19/1983 "Darshna Devi v. RSEB" and No.186/1983 "Korchand v. RSEB" in the suits for permanent injunction which were decreed in favour of the respective plaintiffs. 2. The Courts below have decreed the respective suits of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the appellant-RSEB, a public body. It was observed that the land, earlier allotted to the Mandi Samiti, was never taken in possession by the Mandi Samiti and the same was in valid possession of the plaintiffs; and the transformer of the appellant-RSEB, which was situated on the eastern side of the said plot of the plaintiff was of the RSEB but their claim on a plot of land admeasuring 100 ft. x 150 ft. for construction of entire Sub-Station but the said plot was never allotted to RSEB by the Mandi Samiti and, therefore, under the garb of purported allotment, they (RSEB) were seeking to encroach upon the land of the plaintiffs. 3. x 150 ft. for construction of entire Sub-Station but the said plot was never allotted to RSEB by the Mandi Samiti and, therefore, under the garb of purported allotment, they (RSEB) were seeking to encroach upon the land of the plaintiffs. 3. The relevant portion of the findings of the learned First Appellate Court in the impugned order dated 23.10.1992, whiledeciding issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiffs and affirming trial court's findings are quoted herein below for ready reference:- 16- rudh uEcj 1& ;g rudh oknxzLr Hkwfe okfnuh dh eydh;r gksdj fnukad 2-1-1978 ls mlds dCts esa pyh vkus ckcr gSA okfnuh ds i{k esa mlds eq[r;kj vke us c;ku fd;k rFkk bdjkjukek bZ0,Dl0&7 o bZ0,Dl0&8 dh iqf"V dh gSA lkFk gh bl Hkwfe esa xaxk flag dh [kkrsnkjh dk jsosU;q fjdkMZ bZ0,Dl0&2 o bZ0,Dl0&3 nLrkost is'k fd;s gSaA bu nLrkostksa dks lk{; esa xzg.k djus ckcr vkifRr gS] ysfdu ;g bdjkjukek bZ0,Dl0&7 o bZ0,Dl0&8 uksVsjh ifCyd ls rLnhd'kqnk gSA ;g nLrkost LokfeRo ds ckjs esa iw.kZ ugha gS] ysfdu dksysVjy izi= ds dCts vkfn ds ckjs esa lk{; esa xzg.k fd;k tk ldrk gSA izfroknh dh vksj ls bZ0,Dl0 ,&2 o ,&3 QksVksdkih gh is'k dh x;h gSA vly nLrkost ugha is'k fd;k x;kA ;g fufoZokn rF; gS fd xaxk flag dh [kkrsnkj dh Hkwfe gS] D;ksafd izfroknh us Hkh viuh vfHkdFku esa ;g ckr Lohdkj dh gSA bl laca/k esa bZ0,Dl0&2 o bZ0,Dl0&3 jsosU;q fjdkMZ Hkh is'k fd;k gSA ih0M0&1 vkSj ih0M0&2 ds c;kuksa ls Hkh iqf"V gksrh gSA xaxk flag ds okfjlku ls mlds }kjk Hkw[k.M ij nh x;h vkSj dCtk izkIr fd;kA ;g Hkwfe uxjikfydk dh lhek esa gSA rFkk vklikl vkoklh; Hkw[k.M cus gq, gSaA tcfd izfroknh us viuh lk{; esa dgk gS fd fooknxzLr Hkwfe eaMh lfefr }kjk mls vykVesUV dh x;h gSA ysfdu bl laca/k esa dksbZ Hkh nLrkosth lk{; ,oa ekSf[kd lk{; is'k ugha dh x;h] og Hkh lk{; esa xzkg ugha gks ldrhA izfroknh us ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd vkoaVu dh jkf'k tek ugha djk;h x;hA Hkk[kM+k eaMh lfefr] guqekux<+ }kjk vf/kxzg.k ds ckjs esa dksbZ dk;Zokgh dh gks] ,slh lk{; izfroknh dh vksj ls is'k ugha dh x;hA fookfnr Hkwfe ds laca/k esa mi&[k.M vf/kdkjh] guqekux<+ ds }kjk fu.kZ; dh lR; izfrfyfi bZ0,Dl0&5 ls bZ0,Dl0&6 is'k dh gS] tks Hkh okfn;k ds dCts dks fl) djrh gSA fof/k dh ea'kk ds vuqlkj eaMh lfefr }kjk fu;fer :i ls Hkwfe dk vf/kxzg.k ugha fd;s tkus ij og fdlh dks Hkh vykVesaV ugha dj ldrhA bl ckcr ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dk fofu'p; vkj0,y0MCY;w0 1971 ist 551] muds }kjk m)r fd;k x;k gSA okfnuh }kjk ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ls viuk vkf/kiR; ,oa dCtk lkfcr djus esa iw.kZ lQy jgk gS] tcfd izfroknh us vius vkf/kiR; ,oa LokfeRo ds ckjs esa ,slh dksbZ ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; is'k ugha dh gS] ftlls okfnuh ls cSVj VkbZVy izfroknh ds i{k esa gksA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us nksuksa i{kksa dh vksj ls is'k dh x;h] ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; dk foospu ,oa fo'ys"k.k rudh uEcj 1 dks r; djrs le; dkQh foLr'r ls fd;k gSA blfy;s v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us bl rudh dks oknh ds i{k esa r; djus esa dksbZ =qfV ugha dh gSA 4. While admitting both these appeals, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court had framed the following substantial questions of law on 06.05.1993 which are quoted herein below for ready reference:- "(1) Whether the finding about possession of the plaintiff on the disputed property arrived by the two courts below is vitiated by excluding the certified copy of the Commissioner's report, forming part of Civil Suit No. 63/1979 - Gangasingh v. R.S.E.B. , produced in the present suit, from consideration, on the ground that the Commissioner has not been produced ? (2) Whether a document (Ex. A/4, A/5 & A/6) forming part of the earlier judicial proceedings is a public document and is proved by mere production of a certified copy thereof ?" 5. The learned counsel, Mr. S.D. Vyas, appearing for the appellant-RSEB urged that the possession of the aforesaid plot was given to the appellant-RSEB way back in the year 1968 and the allotment was made in favour of the appellant-RSEB and, therefore, the findings recorded by the both the Courts below are perverse. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel, Mr. B.S. Sandhu, appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs supported the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below and urged that they are the findings of facts based on cogent and relevant evidence led by the respective parties before the Courts below. The learned counsel also submitted that the categorical finding of the Courts below that no allotment was ever finalised in favour of RSEB by the Mandi Samiti and the document produced by the appellant-RSEB was only for a proposed allotment whereas, the DW-1 Uma Shanker Sharma, Executive Engineer, RSEB himself stated that no final payment was made by the appellant-RSEB to the Mandi Samiti nor any lease deed was ever executed by the Mandi Samiti in favour of the appellant-RSEB. The learned counsel further submitted that in view of these findings recorded by the learned Courts below, the judgments impugned did not actually give rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeals filed by the appellant-RSEB. 7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the from the findings extracted above, it is clear that the allotment in favour of the appellant-RSEB of the claim the plot of land admeasuring 100 ft. x 150 ft. 7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the from the findings extracted above, it is clear that the allotment in favour of the appellant-RSEB of the claim the plot of land admeasuring 100 ft. x 150 ft. was never finalised by the Mandi Samiti nor any lease deed or document was ever executed in their favour. The fact or claim made by the appellant-RSEB in their statement that they were given possession of the aforesaid plot was never proved by them. On the other hand, from the statements of DW-1 Mr. Uma Shanker Sharma, Executive Engineer of the appellant-RSEB is that no payment was made to the Mandi Samiti for the plot in question and no lease deed was ever executed by the Mandi Samiti in favour of the appellant-RSEB. Therefore, as a matter of fact, no substantial question of law could be said to be arising in the present second appeals filed by the appellant-RSEB. However, the substantial questions of law, as framed and quoted above, by the co-ordinate bench of this Court are liable to be answered in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. 7. This Court is of the opinion that the Commissioner's Report produced in the previous suit No. 63/1979 - Ganga Singh v. R.S.E.B against the appellant-RSEB as also the other documents viz. Ex. A/4, A/5 and A/6 in the form of judicial proceedings could very well be taken into consideration in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. Therefore, as submitted above, the substantial questions of law are hereby answered in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents and the present second appeals filed by the appellant-RSEB are liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit. 8. Accordingly and in view of the above, the present second appeals filed by the appellant-Rajasthan State Electricity Board stand dismissed; and substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the Courts below and to the parties concerned forthwith.Appeals dismissed. *******