JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE appellant-plaintiffs filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge class II, Bhind, for declaration and permanent injunction and also for the relief that the sale deed dated 11-6-1985 be declared void and inoperative against them. The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiffs. The trial Court after framing the issues and recording the evidence, dismissed the suit, aggrieved by which they preferred an appeal in the Court of Shri N. M. Apte, First Additional District Judge, Bhind, who also dismissed the appeal of the appellants/plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the appellant-plaintiffs have invoked the jurisdiction of this court under section 100, Civil Procedure Code. ( 2. ) THERE is a concurrent finding on all the facts by both the Courts below. On persuasion from Shri K. N. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, I have gone through the entire evidence and also the record. Shri Gupta has rightly refrained himself from addressing this Court with regard to the findings of fact. It is a settled law that the first appellate Court is the last Court of facts. Shri Gupta has raised the solitary point and contended that the Khasras from Samvat 1999 to 2008 contain the name of Ajodhya prasad, the father of the appellant-plaintiffs and, after his death, it shows the names of the plaintiffs as sub-tenants of the suit property. They are, therefore, entitled to get pakka tenancy rights under the provisions of section 38 (2) of the Madhya Bharat zamindari Abolition Act (Act 13 of 1951) (hereinafter called the Act ). Section 38 (2) of the Act is being reproduced below :- "38. (1) ***** ***** ***** (2) Every sub-tenant or tenant of a sub-tenant who deposits with the Tahsildar within the period specified in sub-sections (3) and (4) the following amount to be paid to the proprietor or tenant or sub-tenant, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be a Pakka tenant of the land comprised in his holding. Till amount is deposited, his former status shall continue. Till amount is deposited, his former status shall continue. The becoming of a pacca tenant by depositing money shall firstly be that of the tenant of the sub-tenant, if any, and if he fails to deposit money shall be that of the sub-tenant :- (a) In a case of a sub-tenant of gair Maurusi tenant- An amount equal to the double of the net annual income of hat land of the Gair Maurusi tenant. (b) In case of a sub-tenant of a Maurusi or Sakitulmilkiat tenant- An amount equal to six times the net annual income of that land of the maurusi or Sakitulmilkiat tenant. (c) In the case of a sub-tenant of the Khudkasht or Sir of the proprietor-An amount equal to six times the net annual income of that land of the proprietor. (d) In the case of a tenant of a sub-tenant: (i) If he is a tenant of sub-tenat in the Khudkashit or Sir of the proprietor- An amount equal to six times the net annual income of that land of the proprietor, out of which 85% shall be given to the proprietor and 15% to the sub-tenant. (e) In case of a sub-tenant or tenant of a sub-tenant of either description mentioned in (a), (b), (c) and (d) if the well situate on his holding is a private one of the proprietor or tenant or sub-tenant, as the case may be, and no land of the proprietor, tenant or sub-tenant other than the land of that holding is watered from that well- By way of compensation so much of the amount as the Suba may assess after considering the points mentioned in Schedule III: provided that a sub-tenant or tenant of a sub-tenant shall remain a sub-tenant or tenant of sub-tenant as before in case of disability mentioned in section 74 of Madhya Bharat Revenue Administration and Ryotwari Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007. He shall have no right to become a pacca tenant by depositing the amount under this sub-section. He shall have no right to become a pacca tenant by depositing the amount under this sub-section. " Shri A. B. Mishra and Shri H. D. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, have controverted this contention of Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants, and submitted that in the annual village papers the Patwari has entered the names of the appellants in Column No. 12 as trespassers and, therefore, under section 38 (2) of the Act, no rights of a pacca tenant can be conferred upon them. They contended that the appellants should have not only pleaded but also proved that under section 38 (2) of the Act they have complied with all the provisions. Shri H. D. Gupta further contended that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the purchasers and their names are recorded in the annual village papers of Samvat 2007,2008 and 2009, the basic years. He also contended that the appellants names find place in the annual village paper of samvat 2009 and that too with regard to possession over a tamarind tree. Shri H. D. Gupta has based his contention on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bhujbal Singh vs. Arjun Singh. The law laid down therein is reproduced below : "acquisition of the status of a pakka tenant by a tenant or sub-tenant of a tenant under section 38 of the M. B. Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951, is automatic on the fulfilment by the tenant or sub-tenant of a tenant, as the case may be, of the conditions as to deposit in the manner and to the extent provided in the section. " There is no dispute with this legal position. The main hurdle on the way of the appellants is the Indings of fact given by the lirst appellate Court and all he trial Court. It is clear that their names are recorded only in the annual village papers of Samvat 2009, and that too on a tamarind tree. The rights which are required to be conferred on a tenant under section 38 (2) of the Act, are based on certain facts, and unless and until he is found in possession, no pakka tenancy rights can be conferred upon him. The findings of fact howsoever erroneous they may be, cannot be interfered with in second appeal. The rights which are required to be conferred on a tenant under section 38 (2) of the Act, are based on certain facts, and unless and until he is found in possession, no pakka tenancy rights can be conferred upon him. The findings of fact howsoever erroneous they may be, cannot be interfered with in second appeal. It would not be out of place to quote here the observation of their Lordships of the Supreme court in Deiy Pattabhiramaswamys case ( AIR 1959 SC 57 ). "the provisions of section 100 are clear and unambiguous. There is no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact, however gross the error may seem to be. Nor does the fact that the finding of the first appellate Court is based upon some documentary evidence make it any the less a finding of fact. A judge of the High Court has, therefore, no jurisdiction to interfere in second appeal with the findings of fact given by the first appellate Court based upon an appreciation of the relevant evidence. " Similarly, in Parasnath Thakurs case ( AIR 1959 SC 1204 ), the Supreme Court has observed: "a High Court, on second appeal, cannot go into questions of fact, however erroneous the findings of fact recorded by the Courts of fact may be. " in view of this settled principle of law, as the finding of fact with regard to the possession over the suit land is against the appellants, they are not entitled to any relief. The prayer of the appellants, though garbed in the shape of a question of law, is, in reality, entirely based upon the findings of fact and, when the findings of fact of both the Courts below are against them, the appellants cannot get any relief from this Court. ( 3. ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal is dismissed with costs throughout, and the judgment and decrees passed by both the Courts below are maintained. Counsels fee Rs. 100/- if certified. Appeal dismissed.