Maharajpura, District Karauli. The petitioners came out with the case that the aforesaid land is entered in their khatedari in the revenue record and they are in its possession in which the respondent no.1 wanted to interfere. Therefore, they prayed for a decree of permanent injunction. On the other hand, the respondent no.1 filed a suit with the plea that prior to recording the subject land in the khatedari of the petitioners, it was recorded in its khatedari and during the settlement operation carried out in Samvat 2015, it was erroneously recorded in the khatedari of the petitioners without any authority of law. The Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sapotra (Karauli) (for brevity, ‘learned trial Court’), vide its judgment and decree and dated 12.03.2004, held that prior to the Samvat 2015, the subject land was recorded in the khatedari of the respondent no.1-temple and the settlement department, without any authority, altered the khatedari in favour of the petitioners. It was further held that the subject land was in possession of the petitioners. In view thereof, while dismissing the suit filed by the petitioners, the suit filed by the respondent no.1 was partly decreed declaring it to be khatedar/kashtkar of the subject land. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was assailed both by the petitioners and the respondent no.1. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners, allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent no.1 and a decree of permanent injunction was passed in its favour restraining the petitioners from interfering with the use and occupation of the subject land by the respondent no.1. The two appeals preferred thereagainst by the petitioners have been
