Short Note : This is plaintiff's second appeal, who has lost in both the Courts in the suit for possession of the disputed land. 2. The case of the appellant was that he owned a house on the suit land which was dismentled by him about 12 or 13 years back and that the open piece of land was given by him to one Lachman for his use. It was further averred that about 4 years prior to the institution of the suit the respondent took that piece of land on rent at the rate of Re. 4/- per month. According to the case of the appellant the respondent had executed a rent note in his favour, but it was lost. As the respondent did not pay the rent and claimed his title on the suit land, the appellant had to file the suit for possession. Held : I have heard the learned counsel from both the sides and perused the record. The applicant had filed that suit on the basis of his title. The appellant has miserably failed to prove his title on the suit land. On the contrary the appellant had to admit that the suit land was a Government land and he had occupied it with the permission of certain people of the village and had constructed a house thereon. The appellant failed to adduce any evidence in support of this plea. It is not disputed that the structure which is standing on the suit land was built by the respondent. In case the applicant had given one price of the land for the use of the respondent at the rental of Re.4/- per month, he would not have allowed him to make any contraction on it. According to the case of the appellant he had filed a suit in the Gram Panchayat for the recovery of the rent from the respondent and in that suit a compromise was arrived at between the parties, according to which the respondent had agreed to hand over the vacant possession of the said land to the appellant. According to the case of the appellant he had filed a suit in the Gram Panchayat for the recovery of the rent from the respondent and in that suit a compromise was arrived at between the parties, according to which the respondent had agreed to hand over the vacant possession of the said land to the appellant. In support of the said case of the appellant reliance has been placed on the statement dated 19-07-65 recorded by the Gram Panchayat in which the respondent is purported to have admitted that he had executed a rent note in favour of the appellant according to which he was liable to pay the rent and that he undertook to give vacant possession of the land to the appellant after the rainy season. It may be pointed out that this statement of the respondent though admitted in evidence at Ex.P-5 has not been proved by the applicant. Balwantsingh (P.W.5), who was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat was examined and he has deposed that proceedings were lodged in the Gram Panchayat in the year 1964 in which a compromise was arrived at. But the alleged statement of the respondent Marked as Ex.P-5 could have been used as an admission of the respondent provided it had been proved in accordance with law. In the absence of proof of the said admission, no reliance can be placed on it. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, has come to the finding of fact that the appellant has failed to prove his title on the suit land and that the respondent was in its occupation as an owner for a period of over 12 years. These findings cannot be disturbed in second appeal. No question of law is involved in this appeal and hence there is no ground to make any interference by this Court in second appeal. Appeal dismissed.