Judgment : 1. The appeal has arisen out of judgment & decree dated 15.11.2008 passed by learned District Judge, Tonk, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 56/2005 confirming the judgment & decree dated 7.10.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Di), Niwai, District Tonk in Civil Suit No. (60/98) 189/2001 by which the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed and permanent injunctions, both prohibitory and mandatory, were issued against defendants. 2. In brief, facts of the matter are that plaintiff-respondent – Madan Mohan (since deceased) owns a land and house marked as ABCDE shown in the map annexed with plaint. Pacca houses and shops were constructed by the plaintiffs-respondents in the western side of the land. On the Eastern side of south-west corner, there was one well bounded by Pakka Pachra. In the northern side in the house of the plaintiff from A to K Pakka boundary wall is there. The whole vacant land on eastern side is being used by the plaintiff. He has planted certain trees and flowers there and some part of it is used as ¼ck³k½ (Bada) for keeping fodder, fuel, etc. There is a road abutting well. The well is allowed to be used by some other persons. Defendants were also taking water out of it. But after construction of road abutting well, the defendants mala fidely want to acquire forcibly the land shown as K.B.S. Kha in the map and want to construct a Dharmshala on it. On 6.9.1998, defendants cut some trees grown by plaintiff on the land in question and removed fencing (Bad) and threw them in the western part of the land of the plaintiff. On 13.9.1998, they raised a wall of about 1 or 2 feet height with an intention to forcibly take away the possession of the land measuring 125 feet east-west. At last, the plaintiff prayed for injunction against the defendant not to interfere in peaceful use and possession of the land and also mandatory injunction to remove the encroachment and to restore the possession as it was prior to filing of the suit. 3. The defendants/appellants submitted a written statement with the averments that the land shown as ABCDE in the map annexed with the plaint, does not belong to the plaintiff. The land marked as Ka, Kha, B and C belongs to Kohli community who is in continuous possession over it for last more than 50-60 years. 3. The defendants/appellants submitted a written statement with the averments that the land shown as ABCDE in the map annexed with the plaint, does not belong to the plaintiff. The land marked as Ka, Kha, B and C belongs to Kohli community who is in continuous possession over it for last more than 50-60 years. The plaintiffs have no right on the well. The well is a public property and is being used by Kohli community since long. There is an old holy place of Bhairuji which is being worshiped by Kohli community and it has been decided to construct Dharmshala. Defendants constructed road abutting the well. Plaintiffs want to grab this land also. The matter is pertaining to agricultural land and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the dispute arising out of it. As per revenue record, Khasra No. 4039/1 is a pasture (Charagah) land. It is reserved for construction of Dharmshala, being attached to the well and Bhairuji Mandir, to which plaintiff has no connection and right. Therefore, the suit be dismissed with costs. 4. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed : 1- vk;k nkos dh pj.k la- 1 esa of.kZr fooknxzLr Hkwfe iznf'kZr d- [k- ch- lh- Hkwfe oknh ds vf/kiR; ,oa LokfeRo dh gS \ 2- vk;k nkos dh pj.k la- 3 ¼v½ ds vuqlkj izfroknhx.k us uktk;t :i ls nhokj dk fuekZ.k fd;k o ftls gVokus dk oknh dks vf/kdkj gS \ 3- vk;k fooknxzLr lEifr ch- lh- d- [k- o mlesa fLFkr dqvk ls izfroknhx.k dk dksbZ laca/k ugh gS vkSj ml ckcr oknh dk okn dh pj.k la- 7 ¼c½ ds vuqlkj LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkj gS \ 4- vk;k oknh ds i{k esa okndkj.k mRiUu ugha gksrk gS \ 5- vk;k U;k;ky; dks okn lquus dk Jo.kkf/kdkj ugha gS \ 6- vuqrks"k \ 5. Plaintiffs-respondents examined 4 witnesses and exhibited 4 documents. The appellants/defendants examined 10 witnesses and did not exhibit any document. Learned trial court after hearing both the sides, decided the suit vide judgment & decree dated 7.10.2005 and granted injunction prohibitory and mandatory in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents and against the appellants/defendants. Appellants/defendants preferred an appeal which was rejected by learned District Judge, Tonk vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.2008. 6. Learned trial court after hearing both the sides, decided the suit vide judgment & decree dated 7.10.2005 and granted injunction prohibitory and mandatory in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents and against the appellants/defendants. Appellants/defendants preferred an appeal which was rejected by learned District Judge, Tonk vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.2008. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants raised a specific objection with regard to the jurisdiction and issue was not decided at the outset of the trial. The dispute admittedly is related to an agricultural land and civil court has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon such dispute. A decree passed by the court without jurisdiction is a nullity. 7. No issue with regard to the nature of the land i.e. pjkxkg (pasture land) was framed. A serious prejudice has been caused to the appellants leading to miscarriage of justice. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that the suit for injunction without seeking declaration is not maintainable in law. 9. Learned counsel also submitted that the plaintiffs-respondents have not been able to prove that the disputed well falls in Khasra No. 4039/2. Plaintiff had admitted in cross examination that the land of Khasra No. 4039/2 was a pjkxkg (Charagah) land. Plaintiff has not been able to prove that the land marked ka kha B C was a part of Khasra No. 4039/2 and was in his possession and ownership. 10. Learned counsel submitted that two courts below have erred in passing mandatory injunction for demolition of 125 feet Pacca wall which is erected on the land bearing Khasra No. 4039/1 and it does not fall in the land of the plaintiff. Many substantial question of law are involved in the appeal and as such the appeal be allowed and judgment & decree passed by two courts below be quashed and set aside. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that an issue with regard to jurisdiction was framed and the same has been decided in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. Appellants/defendants could not substantiate that the disputed land and well are situated in Khasra No. 4039/1. They have also not proved that the land is a pasture land. Witnesses of the appellants have admitted that the land in dispute is situated in the village and residences are there around it. The suit was not filed for any declaration of the title. They have also not proved that the land is a pasture land. Witnesses of the appellants have admitted that the land in dispute is situated in the village and residences are there around it. The suit was not filed for any declaration of the title. A simple injunction suit with regard to the land situated in Abadi area has rightly been accepted and injunction has been issued. Learned courts below have committed no error in deciding the issue pertaining to jurisdiction in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. 12. No revenue record or other documentary evidence has been produced by the defendants to prove that the land in dispute is a pasture land, the disputed land belongs to Kohli community, well is used by Kohli Community, plaintiffs-respondents have no ownership over this land, etc. A person in possession can bring a suit for injunction without declaration against all other persons except the true owner, who can also evict the trespasser only through due process of law. In the instant matter, the appellants/defendants have failed to prove its title or possession. However, the encroachment made on the disputed land and well after filing of the suit, have rightly been directed to be removed. The courts below have committed no error in granting decree of mandatory injunction. 13. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and gone through the whole material available on record. 14. Onus to prove issue No.5 was on the defendants/appellants. The appellants not submitted any documentary evidence such as revenue record etc. to substantiate the averments that the disputed land and well are situated in Khasra No.4039/1. 15. Madan Mohan (PW-1) has stated that earlier his for-fathers had got converted the land into residential plots. The case of the plaintiffs-respondents is that whole land of their ownership is situated in Khasra No. 4039/2. In proof, they have exhibited copy of Jamabandi (Ex.P-3). On the contrary, defendants averred that the disputed land is situated on Khasra No. 4039/1 and the same is a pasture land but to substantiate this averment, no revenue record has been exhibited. Thus, there is no reason to set aside the concurrent findings of the courts below that the land in dispute is not an agricultural land and is in possession and title of plaintiffs-respondents. Thus, there is no reason to set aside the concurrent findings of the courts below that the land in dispute is not an agricultural land and is in possession and title of plaintiffs-respondents. It is true that an issue with regard to the jurisdiction happens to be a preliminary issue and it should be decided by the trial court at very initial stage of the trial. Here in the instant matter, it has been decided along with other issues. But, the appellants have failed to show any prejudice caused to them on this count. 16. Some of the witnesses of defendants-appellants have stated that some part of the land in dispute was mentioned in the revenue record as being in possession of Dhoopa Kohli but no revenue record has been exhibited in support. Nevertheless, the learned appellate court has discussed the documents submitted by the appellants before the appellate court with a request to take them on record under O.41 R.27, CPC and after discussing, the appellate court has not found these documents to be supportive of the defendants-appellants. 17. In Ram Daan (dead) through LRs v/s Urban Improvement Trust, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 902 , Apex Court has observed : “A person such as the appellant in possession of land has a perfectly good title against the entire world except the rightful owner. However, the rightful owner must assert his title by the process of law within the period prescribed by the statutes of limitation applicable to the case.” 18. In the instant matter, the plaintiff has averred that he is title-holder of the land in question. Therefore, in view of Ram Daan’s case (supra), the plaintiff was very much competent to bring a suit for injunction without claiming relief for declaration of title against the defendants 19. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff has proved that the land in question is surrounded by residential houses and it is within Abadi area of the village. The defendant has failed to produce any evidence which may support his claim that the land in question is an agricultural land. Thereafter, objection of the appellant that a suit for injunction in the instant matter, cannot be heard by a civil court. 20. The defendant has failed to produce any evidence which may support his claim that the land in question is an agricultural land. Thereafter, objection of the appellant that a suit for injunction in the instant matter, cannot be heard by a civil court. 20. Madan Mohan (PW-1) has stated in examination in chief that after filing of the suit, the defendants have trespassed over his land in question and they have erected a wall without any foundation so also they have planted a stone in the land and named it as a Bhairuji Ka Sthan. The encroachment made by the defendants be removed from his land. Other witnesses examined by the plaintiff have supported Madan Mohan (PW-1). During trial, the plaintiff got amended the plaint and a new prayer at para 7 (B1) was incorporated. Learned trial court has rightly issued a mandatory injunction for removal of encroachment made after filing of the suit so that factual position of the suit property as it was at the time of filing of the suit, could be restored. 21. Both the courts below have made a close scrutiny of the evidence adduced during trial. No perversity or illegality in the findings arrived at by the courts below is reflected. It is settled law that when there is concurrent finding of two courts below and the same is found not to be perverse one, then the court hearing second appeal has no jurisdiction to interfere in the same. 22. The appellants have failed to establish that the courts below have committed any illegality or misinterpreted the law. Thus, the appeal is devoid of any force of law. 23. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.