JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Balotra, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment & decree dated 27.10.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Barmer has been rejected. 2. The appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction inter-alia with the averments that land of their ownership and possession situated at Mohalla Liladiya Dhora in Barmer measurement whereof were indicated in para 1 of the plaint was in possession from the beginning of their father / grand-father, the patta in this regard was issued by the ex-jagirdars of Barmer in samvat 2004 since then they were in possession of the land. It was claimed that the houses etc. are existing on the land and temple of Sanishchar Ji and Hanuman Ji was also there, some plots from the land were sold and rest of the land has been marked, the land was never in possession of the State Government, Municipal Board, Barmer and that at no stage, the patta given by the jagirdars was challenged. 3. Further submissions were made that a suit was filed by the plaintiffs and other coowners against one Hukma Ram for possession, which suit was decreed, wherein the patta in question was recognized. 4. A criminal case was lodged against the plaintiffs and other co-owners, wherein also the patta was recognized and FR was given. Submissions were also made that notice under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act were issued to one Sang Singh, which was responded, wherein for the first time the plaintiffs and other co-owners came to know that the land of their patta was not recorded as abadi and has been recorded as Government land in khasra Nos.1431, 1431/5 and 1433. Repeated notices were given for recording the land as of their ownership, which were not responded and few days back, the respondents attempted to dispossess them. 5. Based on the said submissions, the relief was sought seeking permanent injunction against the respondents from dispossessing the plaintiffs and from allotting, regularizing and transferring the land in question. 6. The suit was resisted by the Municipal Board, wherein the ownership and possession of the plaintiff was denied. It was claimed that the land in question was rightly recorded as Government land and that the same was in possession and ownership of the defendants. 6. The suit was resisted by the Municipal Board, wherein the ownership and possession of the plaintiff was denied. It was claimed that the land in question was rightly recorded as Government land and that the same was in possession and ownership of the defendants. The submissions made regarding the previous suit and the criminal proceedings were denied. 7. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed twelve issues. On behalf of the claimants five witnesses were examined and 26 documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendants, four witnesses were examined and 06 documents were exhibited. 8. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove important facts from their evidence and have expressed ignorance pertaining to the said facts, the suit for permanent injunction has been filed without seeking declaration and besides the plaintiffs, the relief has been sought for other cotenants and transferees of the property. Where after, various issues were dealt with and the suit was dismissed. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed first appeal. Where after, various issues were dealt with and the suit was dismissed. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed first appeal. The first appellate court after hearing the parties and re-assessing the entire evidence available on record, inter-alia recorded the following findings :- 56 - W TTFTeT t it ifc t it WI t W t 1i ^rit i Tf 4K{Rd #tt t i mm mm ^ t 11 i Sf^TR mm clKlkd t ft i ^ *TFT c t"Dl it cTtrft it tit RT ^t if R RW it ifif it tit Rt T TT wiRto r mm m mm it iri it tit ^ i cikuw it RTf^RfeTcT ^R W RR tST f^TT W tl 3RT: I it ^R RTtt mm FFT cr Wlftccl FTt^F FTi if WW TST 11 TF ^TFT^r ^ Tfl^F PT t % llJlHd ^T Ft tftf arfrirr ^ ti^t ^r % ff if ffIft fft ti FRfi FTfr i' =ikikf ^r 3Fpft ffzi^f ^r itFT fftft fft t wg rff FFiFfiF ft f> arraR ft FTft i' tirtf ari^er if^JR # Fif +nfc||i) Fi it FT =IMW ^T Fi afFi TF "i Ff FRi Fi Ftf Fliilil Fi Ft ^FT F*F ^FIFTRF F> FFFT FFR Fit t^TT FFT ti FTft i' ^ tirtf arfieRr if yliRwT Ft ^ttf + Ffafe ^ ^EfR FRi Fi F FFTFfiF FT Ft 3FEJR FT FTFFRT ^T Ft TFF F> TFT Ft aTTFlft ^T % FF ^ F^ FRi # Fif FiNlil Fit F?t t F FcfFfF ^ RFF ^ T1RTF arMrr if yRHl4)j|U| f> FTF F^ t Ft ^ft Fftf^fcT if RF FF> FTFFTF ^ FT FT iRR MfIRT FF FTF FtVflF #FTT Fit FFT FT FFFTT I 60 - arfifFTF MI'Mlet-M if 3TF^ WF iR ff TPff FRF FF MFF FRcT 3TTcfNT Wr FTftrr ftRT ti arflrFTF -mimmm fttt liiF crfri % f ff5ttff Fftit it frf ff tfwtFF t^FT FFT 11 %ft Fftf^cT ^ arf^RTF -MIMIelM ITTT FlftF ^FT fxt if FT TRF F?t F>ti "5^ itFT Flli< F# itFT 11 IF FTFet if apflRRff F> arfifFFFT FTTT TF F^T FT FrF^F FR feF FFT t % aiflfFTF -MIMIcHM ^ FF^ ITTT ^TFT 1^ FF FPjnf FFTT^RTF FF 3TFRtF?F F# FR ^FR FTFFft ^ % 3TT#5F Wf FlftF i^FT t, FRg FF?lR apflRFtf ^ FFF FFf Ft^ FR FfFT F^lF F#f itFT t, FFfW t41<^a FF % FT^t apflRTsff ^ F^t ^ 3TTETR FT 3TFFT TFTftcF FR% gF FTFFF F> FF FFFT 1 Ff&fF FT ft%FFT F# t FFT FTFFF ^ FF TRFT 1 F^F RPj"f FT 3TFFT F>RT F wft?F ftFT Rlf^F Fit t^>FT % I arf^FF #FTFt F?t FTFF t^Tft it mRRmIcI if TFTi fi%TTRT RTft Fit F?t FT FFFft 11 FTFFRT Ft TTRTF arfi^F ^ F%FTitFR F> FTF Ff iti' FT cRF % T^FFT Fit f^FT t F RFF Ffifetf Ft f^TRT FRFTi' FT ^EJR FRFT^ Fi Ft^ Fl^lil FF Fit Fi Ff tl FFF hRM % ^F T^ % FIF^F W FTF i 1 ft Flft ^ ilici Ftw ftff; Fti fitfft Fit f# t, ^ft FftfMr i 1 ffr Memt # fftfft FTFF FTF TflFR Fit 1%FT FT FFFT I RF: aif^FTF -MIMMM ^ t^fF i 1 Ftf FtFT Fit FTFT FTFT % I Based on the above findings, the appeal was dismissed. 10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the courts below committed grave error in dismissing the suit / appeal filed by the appellants. It was submitted that the appellants were in possession of the land in question based on patta issued by the ex-jagirdars and that the respondents had no right to record the land in question as Government land and therefore, when the plaintiffs were sought to be dispossessed / their possession interfered with, the suit filed by them for injunction was maintainable and both the courts committed error in coming to the conclusion that in absence of a suit seeking declaration, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief. 11. Further submissions were made that already findings pertaining to the validity of patta have been recorded by the competent civil court and even in criminal proceedings, the patta has been held as valid and therefore, there was no necessity to seek declaration for protecting the possession by the plaintiffs and therefore, the judgment impugned passed by the courts below deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the judgments impugned. It was submitted that the nature of patta which is sought to be relied on by the plaintiffs is wholly dubious, the same does not bear any stamp duty and/or is not registered and therefore, the patta relied on does not create any right in favour of the plaintiffs. Further submissions were made that as in the so-called previous suit, the defendants were not party, any finding recorded in their absence cannot be binding in the present case. 13. Submissions were also made that once the land has been recorded as Government land, the only option left for the plaintiffs was to seek appropriate declaration before the competent court and a simple suit for injunction was not maintainable and therefore, the appeal filed by the appellants deserves dismissal. 14. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 15. As already noticed herein-before, the suit for injunction was filed based on the patta said to have been issued by the ex jagirdars. Patta as noticed by the courts below does not bear either the stamp duty and/or is also unregistered. 15. As already noticed herein-before, the suit for injunction was filed based on the patta said to have been issued by the ex jagirdars. Patta as noticed by the courts below does not bear either the stamp duty and/or is also unregistered. Admittedly, the land regarding which the injunction has been sought, is recorded as Government land, regarding which, the plaintiffs admittedly have not taken any steps for rectification of the said entries before the courts of competent jurisdiction. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents is justified in her submissions that any finding recorded in the suit pertaining to the validity of the patta to which the defendants are not a party, the said finding cannot be used against the defendants and/or the same are in any case not binding. 17. The appellate court in its elaborate and exhaustive judgment has recorded categoric findings that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is totally open handed, inasmuch as, the plaintiffs have already transferred large chunks of land to about 100 persons, which presently is not in their ownership and possession, however, the suit pertains to the land including the transferred land. Further the court was also of the opinion that the nature of injunction, which was sought, without specifying the land presently under the possession of the plaintiffs, no blanket injunction can be granted based on a patta, from which the land has been transferred to innumerable persons. The findings of fact recorded by the two courts below and the reasoning given for dismissal of the suit / appeal cannot be faulted on any ground. There is absolutely no substance in the present second appeal, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.