JUDGMENT This is plaintiffs second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment of affirmance. Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction as also for mandatory injunction for grant of lease in relation to suit land. Civil Judge, Class II, Panna by judgment and decree dated 25.3.1988 passed in Civil Suit No. 96A of 1987 dismissed the suit. Plaintiffs aggrieved by the same preferred appeal and the Additional District Judge. Panna by judgment and decree dated 26.10.1988 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10A of 1988 dismissed the appeal. Plaintiffs being aggrieved by the same have preferred this appeal. It is common ground that by order dated 26.8.1989 appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law : Whether the Courts below having found the appellants to be in possession for the last 40 years of the suit land are right in holding that they: did not perfect their right by adverse possession? According to the plaintiffs suit land is their ancestral property and they are in possession of the same for the last 40 years. According to the plaintiffs in the settlement of Samvat 2002, suit land was wrongly included as forest in the State of Ajaygarh, but the plaintiffs were cultivating the land on Harokha basis. It has been further stated by the plaintiffs that application was filed before Collector Panna for grant of Patta, but the same has been rejected on the ground that the land belonged to the Forest Department and they are not prepared to transfer it to the Revenue Department. Suit was heard ex-parte against the respondent. Both the Courts below on analysis of the evidence found that the plaintiffs are in cultivating possession of the suit land, but they negatived the case of the plaintiffs that they have perfected their title by adverse possession. While recording the aforesaid finding the Courts below have referred to the evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses as also documents Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-15 from which it is apparent that the plaintiffs are cultivating the land on the basis of Harokha. Counsel for the appellant could not explain the exact meaning of the word Harokha, but he states that it is some kind of permission on certain condition. P-1 to Ex. P-15 from which it is apparent that the plaintiffs are cultivating the land on the basis of Harokha. Counsel for the appellant could not explain the exact meaning of the word Harokha, but he states that it is some kind of permission on certain condition. Courts below on the basis of the evidence have found that the possession of the plaintiffs was permissive and, therefore, they have not perfected their title by adverse possession. Findings recorded by the two Courts below are on appreciation of evidence which cannot be said to be perverse calling for interference in appeal. Shri Agrawal appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that on the findings of the two Courts below itself that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land, they are entitled for grant of lease by the State in respect of the suit land. Miss Tandon appears on behalf of the respondent. Plaintiffs are free to move the appropriate authority for grant of lease. Needless to state that such application shall be dealt in accordance with law. Substantial question of law having been answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendant, I do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.