JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) has challenged the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2009 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No. 104/2004 (114/99) titled as Ishwar lal Vs. Buniyadi Vikas Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and others whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff had filed a suit against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) for cancellation of sale deed dated 01.02.1984 in which plaintiff stated that plaintiff is khatedar of 16 bighas of land situated in Khasra No. 1/268, Village Kalyanpura Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. The plaintiff entered into an agreement for selling 12 bighas of land out of 16 bighas of land with Mitra Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and rest 4 bighas of land is in the possession of the plaintiff. Another suit between the plaintiff and Mitra Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (for short ‘the Samiti’) was said to be pending before the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur in which the defendants had pleaded that they had purchased the plaintiff’s entire land vide sale deed dated 1.2.1984, whereas the plaintiff had not registered any sale deed in their favour. Defendant-Samiti had forged the documents to grab the disputed property. The plaintiff had never gone to the office of Sub-Registrar and not put his signature or his thumb impression on any paper. Rather someone was impersonated as plaintiff-Ishwar Lal. In the said sale deed, defendant-Samiti mentioned that an agreement to sell was entered on 16.8.1978 between the plaintiff and the defendant-samiti after payment of Rs. 101/- and possession of the suit property was handed over to the defendant-Samiti. It was also stated that it was quite unbelievable the amount @ Rs. 20,000/- per bigha was to be paid within 6 years, and that too without any token money. As per the contention of the plaintiff, defendant- Samiti had not paid a single rupee towards the sale consideration and land got recorded in the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records. He had not given possession of the disputed land to the defendant-Samiti. So, plaintiff got the title of the land on account of adverse possession. As per the contention of the plaintiff, defendant- Samiti had not paid a single rupee towards the sale consideration and land got recorded in the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records. He had not given possession of the disputed land to the defendant-Samiti. So, plaintiff got the title of the land on account of adverse possession. Plaintiff also stated that in the year 1976 Village Kalyanpura was included in the urban area, so Urban Ceiling Act was applicable, so, land could not be transferred in the year 1984. So, the alleged sale deed dated 01.02.1984 was void ab initio. Plaintiff also mentioned that Jaipur Development Authority came into force in the year 1982, wherein land of Kalyanpura was included in Green Belt. So, disputed land could not be sold for residential purposes. Thus, alleged sale deed dated 01.02.1984 is null and void. Plaintiff also mentioned that he came to know about so called sale deed dated 01.02.1984 on 16.06.1999, so the sale deed dated 1.2.1984 be cancelled and defendants be restrained to create hurdle in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. 3. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement and mentioned that plaintiff entered into agreement to sell dated 16.8.1978 with the defendant No. 1 and handed over possession of the disputed land and after receiving the full consideration sale deed was executed on 1.2.1984. Defedant also pleaded that defendant-Samiti vide its letter dated 3.2.1984 addressed to Tehsildar, Sanganer had requested to open the mutation of the land in the name of Buniyadi Vikas Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited in place of plaintiff. Defendant No.1 also filed an application before the Assistant Land Settlement Officer to enter the name of defendant No.1 in the revenue record and after receiving the report from the Patwari he ordered on 9.8.1994 to enter the name of defendant No.1 in the revenue record. Plaintiff had also obtained a No Objection Certificate from the Income Tax Department regarding sale. Plaintiff put his thumb impression before the Sub-Registrar. Plaintiff is in collusion with the Mitra Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd.. So plaint filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. 4. Defendant Nos. 2 to 10 had also filed the same written statement as filed by the defendant No. 1. 5. Plaintiff put his thumb impression before the Sub-Registrar. Plaintiff is in collusion with the Mitra Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd.. So plaint filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. 4. Defendant Nos. 2 to 10 had also filed the same written statement as filed by the defendant No. 1. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, trial Court has framed following issues:- (1) Whether the plaintiff had neither gone to the office of Sub- Registrar for registration of the sale deed dated 1.2.1984 in favour of defendant No. 1 nor put signature or thumb impression on any paper? (2) Whether the fact mentioned in the sale deed dated 1.2.1984 that on 16.8.1978 after entering into the agreement to sell and paying Rs. 101/-, possession was handed over to defendant and then for 6 years, existence of the agreement to sell the land @ Rs. 20,000/- per bigha without any sale consideration in the circumstances of the case was not practicable? (3) Whether plaintiff had not received any consideration of the sale deed dated 1.2.1984? (4) When defendant had not got its name registered in revenue record for more than 15 years from the sale deed dated 01.02.1984, the sale deed is proved forged? (5) Whether pursuant to the sale deed dated 01.02.1984, possession was not handed over to the defendant, so, plaintiff became owner and in possession of the disputed land on the basis of adverse possession? (6) Whether in the year 1976 Village Kalyanpura was declared as urban ceiling area, so on the basis of enforcement of Rajasthan Urban Ceiling Act sale deed dated 1.2.1984 as against the plaintiff is illegal and void? (7) Whether after formation of Jaipur Development Authority in the year 1982, when Village Kalyanpura was declared as Green Belt, land of Green Belt could not be sold for residential purposes through sale deed dated 01.02.1984? (8) Whether plaintiff came to know about the so called sale deed said to have been executed in favour of defendant No.1 through Dainik Bhaskar news dated 16.06.99 and written statement filed in the suit titled Mitra Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. versus Ishwar Lal. So, suit filed by the plaintiff was within limitation? (9) Whether plaintiff in collusion with Shri Rajendra Chandel, Coordinator of Mitra Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. appointed him, his power of attorney and gave him rights to contest the suit. So, suit filed by the plaintiff was within limitation? (9) Whether plaintiff in collusion with Shri Rajendra Chandel, Coordinator of Mitra Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. appointed him, his power of attorney and gave him rights to contest the suit. If it is so, what is its effect on the suit? (10) What is the effect of arbitration award dated 24.3.2005 passed by Sub-Registrar Cooperative Societies Jaipur under Section 77(c) on the plaintiff’s suit? (11) Relief? 6. On 7.10.2005 following issues were also framed:- (1) Whether prior to registering the sale deed, the plaintiff had received the balance sale consideration of Rs. 10,000/- through cheque on 01.02.1984 and gave original papers to the defendant No. 1? (2) Whether plaintiff had obtained No Due Certificate from Income Tax Department prior to registration of the sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 1? (3) Whether defendant No. 1 had initiated proceeding for opening the mutation before Assistant Settlement Officer after purchase of the land from plaintiff through sale deed? (4) Whether the plaintiff in the capacity of member of Samiti got allotted a plot on the disputed land from the defendant No. 1? (5) Whether defendant No.1 had submitted the maps and development charges of Vikas Nagar Yozana Scheme sought to be made on the disputed land with JDA, if it is so, what is its effect on the suit? (6) Whether on abolition of Rajasthan Urban Ceiling Act said sale deed neither can be made null and void and nor can be cancelled? (7) When in the arbitration award dated 24.3.2003, sale deed executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 was held to be lawful, the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable? (8) Whether in the FIR lodged by the members of defendant No. 1 against the plaintiff, so called sale deed was got examined by FSL and on the basis of FSL report, suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed? (9) Whether plaintiff and Mitra Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. hatched a conspiracy to grab the defendant No.1’s land as mentioned in para 2 of the plaint? (10) Relief? 7. To prove his plaint, plaintiff examined himself as PW1. Defendants examined the witnesses DW1-Bhagchand Godha, DW2-Magni Devi and other witnesses in support of their case. Trial Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 8. (10) Relief? 7. To prove his plaint, plaintiff examined himself as PW1. Defendants examined the witnesses DW1-Bhagchand Godha, DW2-Magni Devi and other witnesses in support of their case. Trial Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial court wrongly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the trial court had not appreciated the evidence in right perspective. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that it is an admitted position that plaintiff was illiterate person, so evidence led by the plaintiff was required to be carefully examined but the trial court in a cursory and casual manner rejected the evidence led by the plaintiff. Due to illiteracy and confusion, plaintiff gave contradictory evidence during the cross-examination. So these evidence should be ignored. Plaintiff from his evidence duly proved his case. Defendants had not led any evidence that plaintiff had put thumb impression on the so-called sale deed and defendants had not examined the witnesses of the sale deed Laxman Swaroop and Raj Kumar to prove the execution of the sale deed. 9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial court had decided all the issues simultaneously. As per Order 20 Rule 5 CPC, trial court had to decide each issue separately. So order of the trial court deserves to be set aside and matter is required to be remanded back to the trial court for deciding the matter afresh according to the provision of Order 20 Rule 5 CPC. 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that as per contention of the defendant, defendant No.1 had paid Rs.101/- on 16.08.1978 and possession was handed over to him but so-called sale deed was executed after six years, which is not possible in normal circumstances. Trial court had also wrongly appreciated the evidence regarding receipts of Ex-A6 to Ex-A48 because defendants failed to prove thumb impression of the plaintiff on these receipts. In his evidence DW1-Bhagchand Godha had clearly mentioned that these receipts were not executed before him and he had produced these receipts from the record but the trial court wrongly assumed to have been proved the execution of these receipts. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the trial court wrongly relied on the payment of Rs.10,000/- by cheque. In his evidence DW1-Bhagchand Godha had clearly mentioned that these receipts were not executed before him and he had produced these receipts from the record but the trial court wrongly assumed to have been proved the execution of these receipts. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the trial court wrongly relied on the payment of Rs.10,000/- by cheque. Defendants failed to prove that the said cheque was ever encashed. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the trial court wrongly relied on the material collected at the time of inquiry in the criminal case. Trial court solely relied on the FSL report. The said report cannot be taken into consideration unless it is proved in accordance with law because witness of the FSL report was not produced. Trial court wrongly considered the challan (Ex.-A49). In civil case, evidences of the criminal case is not admissible. 12. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that despite being illiterate person, plaintiff categorically denied the execution of sale deed and he also denied to appear before Sub-Registrar and his thumb impression on the so-called sale deed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the trial court wrongly came to the conclusion that present suit is time barred. Plaintiff came to know regarding so-called sale deed from the suit filed by the Mitra Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. So, finding of the trial court be set aside. 13. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the trial court had erred in holding that the provisions of the Urban Ceiling Act were not applicable due to repeal of the Act. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that at the time of so-called transaction, Urban Ceiling Act was in force. So, finding of the trial court be set aside. 14. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the trial court has wrongly decided the issue No. 7 against the plaintiff. Jaipur Development Authority came into existence in the year 1982, so land belonging to Kalyanpura Village was declared as Green Belt. So, conversion of land for residential purposes could not take place. So, sale deed is ab initio void. 15. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the trial court wrongly interpreted Section 42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act and held that it is not applicable. So, finding of the trial court be set aside. 16. So, conversion of land for residential purposes could not take place. So, sale deed is ab initio void. 15. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the trial court wrongly interpreted Section 42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act and held that it is not applicable. So, finding of the trial court be set aside. 16. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that presently possession of the disputed land vests in plaintiff. Plaintiff had filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for the purpose of appointment of Court Commissioner to procure the factual report regarding the possession of the disputed land. So, appeal filed by the plaintiff be allowed and the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2009 passed by the trial court be set aside. 17. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Kanji Ravaria Vs. Anis Ismail Khoja reported in Second Appeal No.649/2019, Application No.766/2019 decided on 09.06.2022; (2) Shanti Lal Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.816/2009 decided on 11.01.2011; (3) Umaid Mal Vs. Tej Raj & Ors in S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.1/1990 decided on 23.04.2014; (4) Chintaman Namdev Patil (Dead) Vs. Sukhdev Namdev Patil & Anr. in Civil Appeal NO.7991/2015 decided on 28.09.2015 and (5) Legal Representatives of Late Sh. Satyanarayan Vs. Sunderlal in Civil Misc. Appeal No.2462/2017 decided on 04.09.2017. 18. Learned counsel for the defendants have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that the trial court rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Trial court while dismissing the suit decided each and every issue by detailed finding. Learned counsel for the defendants also submitted that these issues are connected to each other, so trial court instead of deciding them separately, decided these issues jointly. So, there is no illegality or irregularity in the judgment of the trial court. 19. Learned counsel for the defendants further submitted that plaintiff had to prove by the cogent evidence that he had not executed the so-called sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. Plaintiff gave contradictory statement. He had denied thumb impression on the so-called sale deed but criminal proceedings were initiated against the plaintiff and during the investigation, thumb impression on the so-called sale deed and other admitted signatures of the plaintiff were examined by the State Forensic Laboratory. A report was submitted in this regard. Plaintiff gave contradictory statement. He had denied thumb impression on the so-called sale deed but criminal proceedings were initiated against the plaintiff and during the investigation, thumb impression on the so-called sale deed and other admitted signatures of the plaintiff were examined by the State Forensic Laboratory. A report was submitted in this regard. The said report was against the plaintiff. Various criminal cases were instituted against the plaintiff but plaintiff deliberately did not submit correct facts during cross-examination. Learned counsel for the defendants also submitted that the plaintiff had to prove that he had not executed the so-called sale deed and he had to stand on his own legs to prove his case. During the cross-examination, he had denied his thumb impression on his affidavit and plaint. He also stated that Mitra Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. had not instituted the suit against him. He also stated that affidavit was not attested by Oath Commissioner. He had not adduced the evidence of so-called witnesses of the sale deed Laxman Swaroop and Raj Kumar. 20. Learned counsel for the defendants also submitted that application filed by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is not maintainable because Court cannot collect the evidence regarding possession which vests with the defendant. So, application filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. 21. Learned counsel for the defendants also submitted that the plaintiff is in connivance with the Mitra Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. so, he filed the suit against the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants also submitted that the plaintiff had filed an application under Section 151 CPC for not pressing the appeal. As per the application, this Court vide order dated 04.12.2009 dismissed the appeal as not pressed. After that, legal representative of plaintiff Ranjeet Singh had filed a restoration application to harass the defendants. So, appeal filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. 22. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendants. 23. Contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the trial court had not decided the issues as per Order 20 Rule 5 CPC, which is not tenable because trial court while deciding the issues clearly mentioned that these issues are interconnected with each other. 23. Contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the trial court had not decided the issues as per Order 20 Rule 5 CPC, which is not tenable because trial court while deciding the issues clearly mentioned that these issues are interconnected with each other. So, trial court decided these issues by way of detailed findings and findings of the trial court does not suffer from illegality and infirmity. 24. Plaintiff had to prove by cogent evidence that he had not executed the so-called sale deed but plaintiff failed to adduce cogent evidence that he had not executed the so-called sale deed. Even witnesses of the sale deed Laxman Swaroop and Raj Kumar were not produced by the plaintiff. During cross-examination, plaintiff denied to file the affidavit as well as plaint and he denied the contents of the affidavit and its attestation. Defendants in their evidence proved the receipts of the payment made to the plaintiff. Various FIRs were lodged against the plaintiff and chargesheet was also filed. During the investigation, Forensic Laboratory examined the so-called sale deed and found that thumb impression on the sale deed was of the plaintiff. Contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that these documents cannot be read against the plaintiff is baseless because plaintiff had admitted the criminal proceeding pending against him. Trial court while deciding the suit clearly mentioned that the plaintiff was deliberately did not put the correct facts before it. The plaintiff in his cross-examination wrongly mentioned that no suit was filed against him by Mitra Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. but while calculating the limitation, he had mentioned that he knew the fact of sale deed from the suit of Mitra Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Trial court while dismissing the suit clearly mentioned that as per FSL report, thumb impression on so-called sale deed and receipts were of plaintiff. 24. Application filed by the plaintiff for procuring the Commissioner report regarding the possession of the disputed land of the plaintiff is not maintainable because Court cannot appoint the Commissioner for collecting the evidence. So, appeal as well as application filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, are liable to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly. 26. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.