JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel who has put in appearance in this appeal representing the contesting respondent No. 1. Perused the record. The respondent No. 1 had filed a suit being suit No. 35-A of 1986, against Badri Prasad Agrawal, the present respondent No. 2. The suit had been filed for the recovery of the possession over the accommodation in dispute including arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation pendente lite and future. The aforesaid suit had been filed on the allegations that Badri Prasad Agrawal who continued to be a tenant of the accommodation in dispute had defaulted in the payment of rent and had illegally sub-let the accommodation to Ramjilal and his son Raju. The eviction was sought also on the ground that the accommodation in dispute was bona fide required by the plaintiff. The defendant, Badri Prasad filed a written statement denying the plaint allegations. In support of her case in the aforesaid suit, Mayadevi, the plaintiff had examined herself as a witness. The trial Court believing her case granted a decree as prayed for. When the aforesaid decree was put into execution, it was objected to by the present appel1ant who is the son of Ramjilal referred to herein above, and he filed a suit which was registered as suit No. 137-A of 1990. In fact, the assertions made in the plaint really amounted to objections contemplated under Order XXI rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The plaintiff claimed to have matured rights on the basis of adverse possession. It is not disputed that the plaintiff had been born in the year 1959. At the time of filing of the suit in the year 1990, he was only 31 years of age. The property in dispute had been transferred by Gopilal, Mahendra Kumar and Basant Kumar in favour of Shanti Devi vide the sale dated 18.9.1961, which was registered on 21.9.1961. Shanti Devi had transferred the propel1y in dispute in favour of Mayadevi vide the sale deed dated 6.4.1967. The appellant's claim was contested by Mayadevi, the respondent No. 1, denying his right, title and interest in the accommodation in dispute. Shanti Devi had transferred the propel1y in dispute in favour of Mayadevi vide the sale deed dated 6.4.1967. The appellant's claim was contested by Mayadevi, the respondent No. 1, denying his right, title and interest in the accommodation in dispute. The husband of Shanti Devi, the predecessor-in-interest of Mayadevi was examined as a witness, DW 2 (Prabhu Dayal), who had stated that pursuant to the sale deed executed in favour of Shanti Devi, she had been put in vacant possession of the accommodation in dispute. It was she who had let out the suit accommodation in favour of Ramsingh. He had also stated that on the execution of the sale deed in favour of Mayadevi, she had been put in possession thereof. He, however, admitted that at the time when the accommodation in dispute had been sold in favour of Mayadevi, at that time Ramsingh was occupying the suit premises. The trial Court disbelieving the case of the plaintiff, the present appellant about his having matured any title by adverse possession in the accommodation in dispute. dismissed the suit. From a perusal of the statement of the appellant which was recorded before the trial Court, it is apparent that his possession if at all could not be deemed to be in the knowledge of the true owner. In any case, it could not be treated to be hostile. Both the Courts below have found that on an appraisal of the evidence on the record, that the appellant had failed to establish maturing of any right in the accommodation in dispute on the basis of the adverse possession. The learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously tried to assail the findings returned against the appellant by both the Courts below. The view taken by the Courts below is in consonance with the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of S.M. Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1254 , which stands clearly attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case as brought on the record. It may be noticed that the sale deed executed in favour of Mayadevi had been duly acted upon and the entries of the record in respect of the property in question maintained by the municipal authorities had been corrected accordingly and her name was mutated. It may be noticed that the sale deed executed in favour of Mayadevi had been duly acted upon and the entries of the record in respect of the property in question maintained by the municipal authorities had been corrected accordingly and her name was mutated. No objection to the mutation proceedings had been raised by the appellant. ]n the circumstances. the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Shohharam v. Jiyalal, reported in 1979(I) MPWN SN 173 at page 207, is also clearly attracted. I further find that the plea of adverse possession raised by way of amendment of the plaint by the present appellant could not be taken to have been established so as to defeat the rights of the defendant Mayadevi and the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Madhav Krishan and another v. Chandrabhage and others, reported in 1997(1) JLJ 386 , is clearly attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. considering the nature of the pleadings. The findings returned against the appellant by both the Courts below are based on an appraisal of evidence and materials as brought on the record. These findings do not appear to suffer from any such legal infirmity which may justify an interference therein by this Court in the present proceedings while exercising the limited jurisdiction envisaged under section 100 of the Code. This appeal does not involve any substantial question of law which may require consideration by this Court. This appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code.