Short Note : 1. The admitted facts of the case are that the defendant was in possession of the suit land prior to the coming into force of the Abolition of Jagirs Act. The defendant applied for conferral of the Pacca tenancy rights under S. 21 (1) of the said Act. The application of the defendant was allowed by Tahsildar but the order of the Tahsildar was set aside by the Collector. Thereafter the defendant filed a suit for declaration that the order of the Collector was null and void. The suit was decreed by the trial Court but on appeal the decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit was dismissed. Thereafter this suit was filed by the plaintiff for possession contending that the possession of the defendant had become wrongful from 24-9-58 when the order of the Tahsildar was set aside by the Collector Mandsaur. The defendant resisted the suit and pleaded that he was in adverse possession from 1949 and the suit was barred by the law of Limitation. The defendant also denied that the plaintiffs were the Bhumiswami of the suit land. The trial Court held that the defendant was in permissive possession and the suit was not barred by limitation. However, it held that it was not proved that the plaintiffs were the Bhumiswami of the suit land. The suit was, therefore, dismissed. In appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, the appellate Court has held that the plaintiffs were the Bhumiswami of the suit land and that the possession of the defendant was permissive and the suit was within time. The appeal was therefore, allowed and the plaintiffs suit for possession and mesne profits for three year at the rate of Rs. 50/- was decreed, The defendant has challenged this decree in this second appeal. Held : The lower appellate Court has found that the plaintiffs name has been recorded in Ex. D. 1 as Bhumiswami. The defendant had applied for conferral for Bhumiswami rights against the plaintiff claiming himself to be the sub-tenant of the suit land. This also shows that the plaintiff had title to the suit land. The defendant never claimed title in himself. The defendant, however, wanted to place reliance upon a document said to have been executed in the year 1949. The defendant had applied for conferral for Bhumiswami rights against the plaintiff claiming himself to be the sub-tenant of the suit land. This also shows that the plaintiff had title to the suit land. The defendant never claimed title in himself. The defendant, however, wanted to place reliance upon a document said to have been executed in the year 1949. The defendant alleged that this was an agreement to sell the suit land executed by the plaintiff in his favour. The plaintiff alleged that that was an agreement to mortgage the land for Rs. 30/-. This document was in possession of the defendant but has not been produced inspite of notice by the plaintiff to the defendant to produce the same in the Court. The defendant has not examined himself as a witness. In the circumstances the lower appellate Court drew an inference against the defendant that had this document been produced by him, it would not have supported him. On consideration of the evidence produced on record the appellate Court held that the plaintiff was the Bhumiswami of the suit land and that the defendant was not in adverse possession of the suit land but his possession was permissive. These are findings of fact based on evidence and no ground has been pointed out which may vitiate the said finding. 2. In these circumstances the submission of Shri K.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant that the defendant was in adverse possession for more that 12 years prior to the filing of the suit and the suit was barred by limitation, has no substance. Shri Gupta also contended that the civil Court had mo jurisdiction and that the plaintiffs ought to have approached the revenue authority under section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. This contention also has to be rejected. The point was not taken in the Courts below. However, the suit is based on title of the plaintiff and the civil Court has jurisdiction to try such a suit. Appeal dismissed.