JUDGMENT : Goverdhan Bardhar, J. This civil first appeal has been filed under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 4.04.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2-Ajmer whereby he dismissed the civil suit No. 31/2013 (177/05) titled Bijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration against the respondents-defendants stating therein that the plaintiff is in possession of Plot No. 112, Ward No. 1, Shastri Nagar, Ajmer measuring 650 sq. Yard wherein one room, kitchen and latrine were constructed having boundary wall around the said plot. It was further stated that the plaintiff is in having possession for last more than 36 years and it was further stated that on 5.10.1998, the appellant applied before the UIT for regularization of the plot in the vicinity and after that no information given by UIT to the plaintiff. 3. The plaintiff filed suit for injunction bearing no. 148/1990 and same was decided on 4.02.2003 with the direction that the respondents shall not dispossess the plaintiff from the plot without following the due process of law. Plaintiff further stated that an illegal order has been passed on 17.09.2004 by the defendant No. 3 and plaintiff filed the suit before Civil Judge (Jr. Division) North, Ajmer and same is pending. 4. Learned trial court after hearing the parties dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 4.04.2014 against which this appeal has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiff is in possession of the property and cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law. It is further submitted that the learned trial court did not consider provision of Section 110 of the Evidence Act, which clearly says that due to long possession, the title accrues in favour of the plaintiff. He has further submitted that plaintiff has already filed an application for regularization of the plot and after inspection of the plot, the decision has not been taken by the UIT. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused relevant material placed before me. 8. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused relevant material placed before me. 8. It is not in dispute that the suit No. 148/90, status of the plaintiff found to be trespasser. The trial Court has ordered that the plaintiff cannot be dispossessed without following the process of law. In suit No. 148/1990, the plaintiff failed to prove the right title and interest with regard to suit property and suit for declaration was dismissed against which appeal was also dismissed. 9. The trial Court has ordered that the plaintiff cannot be dispossessed without following the process of law. In suit No. 148/1990, the plaintiff failed to prove the right title and interest with regard to suit property and suit for declaration was dismissed against which appeal was also dismissed. 9. While deciding the civil suit filed by the plaintiff, the trial court has decided the issues as under: mDr nksuksa fook|d ,d nwljs ls lEcfU/kr gksus ds dkj.k budk fuLrkj.k ,d lkFk fd;k tk jgk gS ftUgsa lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izfroknhx.k ij gSA ftudh vkSj ls izLrqr xokg yfyr eksgu 'kekZ dfu"B vfHk;Urk uxj fuxe vtesj Mh0M0 1 us 'kiFk i= ds ek/;e ls dFku fd;k fd oknh fcztsUnzflag dk oknxzLr Hkw[kaM+ ij fdlh Hkh izdkj ls dksbZ fof/kd vf/kdkj vFkok fof/kd dCtk ugha gSA oknh ds i{k esa oknxzLr Hkw[kaM ckcr dksbZ jktdh; nLrkost ugha gSA oknxzLr Hkwfe [kljk ua0 2866 dk ,d Hkkx gS ftldk Hkw[kMa Øekad 112 gSA fnuakd 05-05-1979 dks uxj lq/kkj U;kl vtesj }kjk x`g fuekZ.k ;kstuk ds rgr [kqyh cksyh esa mDr Hkw[kaM+ f'kopj.k vxzoky ds uke NwVk ftlus leLr ewY; jkf'k tek djk nh rFkk mDr O;fDr dks dCtk fn;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku oknh us voS/k :i ls dCtk dj fy;k ftl vfof/kd dCts ds vk/kkj ij oknh dks dksbZ gd o vf/kdkj mRiUu gksuk ugha ekuk tk ldrkA oknh ,d vfrØeh gS ftls fof/k esa dksbZ mipkj mlds vfrØeh gksus ds dkj.k miyC/k ugha gSA bl lk{kh ds vfrfjDr vuwi VaMu vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;Urk vtesj fodkl izkf/kdj.k vtesj Mh0M0 2 us 'kiFk i= ds ek/;e ls dFku fd;k fd 'kkL=h uxj ;kstuk esa fLFkr Hkw[kaM+ la0 bZ0 112 {ks=Qy 640 oxZxt dk uxj lq/kkj U;kl] vtesj orZeku vtesj fodkl izkf/kdj.k vtesj }kj [kqyh uhykeh j[kh xbZ ftl esa f'kopj.k vxzoky }kjk mDr Hkw[kaM+ dh lEiw.kZ jkf'k tek djkus ij mls vuqKk i= o uSfrd dCtk tkjh fd;k x;k rFkk orZeku esa mDr ;kstuk dh i=koyh fnuakd 18-04-1998 dks uxj fuxe dks gLrkUrfjr dh tk pqdh gSA oknxzLr Hkw[kaM ij f'kopj.k }kjk fuekZ.k ds vHkko ds dkj.k gh fotsUnzflag }kjk tcju dCtk djus ij izfroknh }kjk csn[kyh dh dk;Zokgh djus ij fotsUnz }kjk okn la0 208@89 148@90 flfoy tt d0[k0 mRrj esa is'k fd;k tks fd fnuakd 04-02-2003 dks fu.khZr fd;k x;k fd fcuk fof/kd izfØ;k viuk, csn[ky ugha djsaA oknh U;kl ;kstuk ds Hkw[kaM+ksa ij fcuk vkoaVu ds dCtk dj fuekZ.k djus dk drbZ vf/kdkjh ugha gS] oknh vfrØeh gS] tks gLrxr okn esa dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA 17& mDr nksuksa lk{khx.k dks] izfrijhf{kr fd;s tkus ij budh eq[; ijh{kk dk [kaMu ugha gks ik;k gSA tSlk fd ge fook|d la[;k ,d ,oa nks ds fofu'p;u esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr dj pqds gaS fd fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us nhokuh okn la0 148@90 esa oknh dks vfrØeh ekuk gS rFkk mDr fu.kZ; ds fo:) oknh }kjk dh xbZ vihy Hkh [kkfjt gks pqdh gS ,ao oknxzLr Hkw[kaM+ vtesj fodkl izkf/kdj.k dh lEifr gS rFkk oknh ds ikl mDr fookfnr Hkw[k.M ckcr dksbZ ekfydkuk dkxtkr Hkh ugha gS ftl dkj.k ls oknh dks oknxzLr Hkw[k.M+ ij ekfydkuk gd izkIr ugha gqvk gS rFkk oknh oknxzLr laifr ds LokfeRo dh ?kks"k.kkRed fMØh ikus dk vf/kdkjh gksuk ugha ik;k x;k gSA 18 & vr% mi;qZDr foopsu ,oa fo'ys"k.k ls izfroknhx.k ;g fl) djus esa iw.kZr;k lQy jgs gSa fd fookfnr Hkw[kaM+ la0 112 [kljk ua0 2866 dk Hkkx gS] tks iwoZ esa uxj lq/kkj U;kl dh lEifr Fkk rFkk oknh oknxzLr lEifr ij cgSfl;r vfrØeh dkfct gSA vr% mDr fook|d la[;k rhu ,oa ikap cgd izfroknhx.k fo:) oknh fu.khZr fd, tkrs gSA 10. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the court below is on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. 11. The appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.