JUDGMENT : VIJAY KUMAR VYAS, J. 1. This second appeal has arisen out of judgment & decree dated 16.11.1996 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 35/1996 by which it reversed the judgment & decree dated 27.4.1996 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 25/1997, whereby the suit was rejected. 2. In brief, facts of the matter are that one Radhey Shyam (deceased) filed a suit for injunction on 23.6.1987 stating inter alia that the property in question was given to Radhey Shyam Agarwal in gift by way of “Patta” by late His Highness Maharaja Sawai Man Singh in the year 1968. The possession was also given and he is continuously holding the possession through his servant who rears his cattle in the same. It was further averred that his general Power of Attorney Holder was also carrying on business of tent in the premises in question. The plaintiffs/respondents prayed that the defendants/appellants be restrained from interfering in possession, not take possession of the same and should not alter the premises in question during pendency of the suit. Radhey Shyam died and his legal heirs have been brought on record. The defendants/appellants denied the averments of the plaint in their written statements and averred that the property in question was previously of the Erstwhile State and it is part of Janana Dyodhi building. After 1949 and merger of Erstwhile State, the Janana Dyodhi building as a whole vests in the State and as such there was no question of allotting or giving in gift of any property of the State Government by His Highness Maharaja Sawai Man Singh to the plaintiffs-respondents. After 1949, the Erstwhile Ruler was not having any ownership right over the property, as such, it belongs to the State Government. The alleged gift is fake and forged one. Plaintiffs wanted to take possession of the property and the State Government have every right to restrain the other person/persons from taking possession of the State property. The request was made for rejecting the plot with costs. The alleged gift is fake and forged one. Plaintiffs wanted to take possession of the property and the State Government have every right to restrain the other person/persons from taking possession of the State property. The request was made for rejecting the plot with costs. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed:- 1- vk;k oknxzLr lEifr ftldk o.kZu okni= ds in uaŒ 1 HkwriwoZ ujs'k t;iqj Lo0 egkjktk lokbZ ekuflagth ds LokfeRo esa lu~ 1968 o mlls iwoZ jgh \ 2- D;k oknxzLr ifjlj esa oknh lu~ 1968 ls dkfct gS \ 3- D;k oknxzLr ifjlj esa 13-6-87 rd oknh ds rkys yxs gq, Fks] ftUgsa izfroknx.k us iqfyl dh lgk;rk ls 14-6-87 dks [kqyok dj vius rkys yxk fn;s \ 4- D;k oknh izfroknhx.k dks LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcan djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ 5- D;k oknh] oknxzLr ifjlj ls izfroknhx.k ds rkys gVokus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ 6- D;k oknh }kjk izfroknhx.k dks lhihlh dh /kkjk 80 ds vUrxZr uksfVl ugha nsus ls oknh dk okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gS \ 7- D;k oknh }kjk ?kks"k.kkRed vuqrks"k dh izkFkZuk ugha djus ls mldk LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gS \ 8- D;k izfroknhx.k] oknh ls gtkZ [kkl 5000@&:- ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ 9- vk;k oknxzLr lEifr o"kZ 1949 ls la;qDr jktLFkku jkT; ds fuekZ.k ds le; HkwriwoZ egkjktk lokbZ ekuflag] t;iqj ds izfroknhx.k ds LokfeRo o vf/kdkj esa vk;h \ 10- vk;k oknxzLr lEifr tukuh M~;kS<h dh lEifr dk ,d fgLlk gS \ 11- vuqrks"k \ 3. Plaintiffs-respondents examined 18 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents. Defendants examined 5 witnesses and not exhibited any documents. Learned trial court after hearing both the parties, dismissed suit vide judgment & decree dated 27.4.1996. 4. The plaintiffs/respondents filed an appeal. After hearing both the parties, the appellate court i.e. Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide its judgment & decree dated 16.11.1996 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment & decree of the trial court and passed a mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents and against the defendants-appellants for removing locks and to give possession of the property in dispute to the plaintiffs-respondents within a period of 15 days. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment & decree dated 16.11.1996, the defendants-appellants have preferred this second appeal. 6. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment & decree dated 16.11.1996, the defendants-appellants have preferred this second appeal. 6. After hearing the matter, following substantial questions of law for consideration by this court were framed: "1. Whether the suit for injunction which was filed by the plaintiff-respondent in appeal was maintainable particularly when according to the case as set up by the plaintiff-respondent he was already in possession as on the date of institution of the suit and whether the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court deserves to be sustained? 2. Whether the judgment and decree dated 16.11.96 passed by the appellate court by which the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 27.4.96 have been reversed is perverse and deserves to be quashed and set-aside? 3. Whether after 1949, after merger of the erstwhile state, the Erstwhile ruler was having any right over the property which has been transferred to the State of Rajasthan? 4. Whether in the year 1968, the property which is part of the Janana Dyodhi building, the Erstwhile Ruler have any right to transfer the same? 5. Whether the trespassers who have already been dispossessed from the property have a right to file and maintain only injunction suit without prayer of the possession? 6. Whether in view of Article 363 of the Constitution of India the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred as on the date of filling of the suit since the question which was to the decided was whether the disputed property including the private property as mentioned in the Inventory under the Covenant entered into between the Ruler of Jaipur was a government property and whether the said question can be gone into in view of the objection which has been raised for the first time before this court in this second appeal as the same is beyond the scope of pleadings?" 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the property in question is a part of Janana Dyodhi building which belongs to the State of Rajasthan. After 1949, the State of Rajasthan became absolute owner of the property. Learned trial court decided Issues No. 9 and 10 in favour of the appellants and held that the property in question is a part of the Janana Dyodhi building and the State of Rajasthan is only owner of the property. After 1949, the State of Rajasthan became absolute owner of the property. Learned trial court decided Issues No. 9 and 10 in favour of the appellants and held that the property in question is a part of the Janana Dyodhi building and the State of Rajasthan is only owner of the property. But, learned appellate court without any cogent reasons, reversed the judgment & decree of learned trial court which is contrary to the facts and law. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that on 14.6.1987 the property was taken in possession by the State. The suit was filed by plaintiffs-respondents on 23.6.1987. On the date of filing of the suit, the property was in possession of the State. Nevertheless, the suit was filed only for injunction and not with claim for possession. But without considering this aspect, the appellate court reversed the findings of the trial court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that in absence of any prayer made in this behalf, the mandatory injunction has been granted against the appellants to hand over the possession. This act of the court is without authority of law and jurisdiction. 10. In the year 1968, His Highness Maharaja Sawai Man Singh was not having any authority to give in gift of the property in question. Trespasser who has been dispossessed, have no right to get the possession of the property back. There was no question for dispossessing the respondents after adopting due process of law. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the suit for injunction against anybody except the true owner is maintainable. The true owner can also evict the trespasser only after following due process of law. On knowing that respondents have put there own lock on the property in question, the prayer clause in the suit was suitably amended and the prayer for restoring the possession was included, learned appellate court has rightly issued the mandatory injunction to restore the status of possession, as was immediately prior to filing of the suit. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the plaintiffs-respondents have not only produced oral evidence, but also documentary evidence in support of their averments. On the contrary, appellants defendants did not adduce any documentary evidence to substantiate their claim. 13. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the plaintiffs-respondents have not only produced oral evidence, but also documentary evidence in support of their averments. On the contrary, appellants defendants did not adduce any documentary evidence to substantiate their claim. 13. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and gone through the whole material available on record. 14. On perusal of the record, it reveals that the plaint was submitted on 23.6.1987 and the same was amended twice. New paras - 11A and 11B were inserted and a new prayer AA was added whereby mandatory injunction to remove the lock against the defendants- appellants was requested. 15. It is settled law that in the matter of suit for injunction, the courts are competent to restore the position of facts as it was at the time of filing of the suit. Learned appellate court has cited Koki vs. Chetva Chamar, AIR 1972 Patna 241 and Fakir Bhai Bhagwan Dass vs. Madan Lal, AIR 1951 Bombay 380 in support of mandatory injunction granted by it. I have gone through the citations. It is not a case where without prayer, a mandatory injunction has been issued. In view of settled position of law, I do not find any illegality in issuing mandatory injunction by the appellate court. 16. By exhibiting certain letters which were part of the correspondence going on between the Secretary of Governor and the State Government with regard to ascertaining the ownership of the property in question, which have been admitted by witnesses of the appellants/defendants as well, it reveals that upto sometime prior to filing of the suit, neither the Secretary of the Governor nor the State Government was sure about ownership of the property in question. No evidence has been adduced by the appellants as to how ultimately they ascertained that the property in question belongs to the State Government. No evidence has been adduced by the appellants as to how ultimately they ascertained that the property in question belongs to the State Government. In the written statement, the appellants have taken a stand that as per inventory report made at the time of merger of Erstwhile State into the present State of Rajasthan, Janana Dyodhi building was to be the property of the State Government but the property in question is quite distant from Janana Dyodhi building, learned trial court has rightly disbelieved the theory that only because the property in question is said to be connected by a tunnel with the main building of Janana Dyodhi, the property in question can be presumed as a part of the Janana Dyodhi building. Though the plaintiffs-respondents could not produce the so-called Patta issued in his favour in the year 1968 by the then His Highness Maharaja Sawai Man Singh yet he has produced and exhibited a letter of Rajmata acknowledging that the property in question was gifted by His Highness Maharaja Man Singh and the possession was also handed over in the year 1968. The record pertaining to the Nagar Palika corroborates the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiffs-respondents that the property in question was in his possession through his servants who were rearing cattle there and also through his Power of Attorney who was using the premises in question to run his tent house business. No evidence in rebuttal has been adduced by the defendants-appellants. No positive evidence to prove their possession, has been adduced by the defendants-appellants. 17. In view of above, I am of the opinion that the respondents are entitled for injunction, as prayed for against all except a true owner of the property who can also evict the trespassers only by following due process of law. In Ram Daan (dead) through LRs vs. Urban Improvement Trust, (2014) 8 SCC 902 , Apex Court has observed as under: “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. 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. Since it could not be proved by the appellants by adducing evidence that after 1949, i.e. after merger of the Erstwhile State, the property in question has been transferred/vested to the State Government and after the year 1968, the possession of the State Government continued over it, all the substantial questions of law framed, are found to be in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and as such, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the first appellate court. 19. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed.