JUDGMENT Heard on admission. This is an appeal by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration of his title over Survey No. 7/3 having an area 5.645 hectare, Halka Number 36, situated in village Singhara, Tehsil Mungaoli, District Guna. The plaintiff pleaded that he is in possession of the suit land from Samvat 2010. The plaintiff's possession is well within the knowledge of the defendant No.2 - State of Madhya Pradesh. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit land for more than 30 years and he has perfected his title by adverse possession. The plaintiff further pleaded that the State has granted lease of the suit land to defendant No. 1 on 2.8.1988 and defendant No. 1 stated that he shall forcibly take possession of the suit land. It was further pleaded that the lease of the suit land in favour of the defendant No. 1 is not binding upon the plaintiff and the proceedings for lease are null and void. The rights of the plaintiff are not extinguished by grant of lease. Defendant No. 1 had not filed any written-statement. The defendant No. 2 State of M.P. has opposed the suit. During the pendency of the suit, a compromise application was filed by the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 - Banke Lal. Defendant No. 1 - Banke Lal admitted the claim of the plaintiff. The trial Court has rejected the application for compromise and dismissed the suit on merits. In the evidence, the plaintiff has admitted that he wanted to purchase the suit lands from the defendant No. 1 - Banke Lal. Defendant Banke Lal informed him that it is difficult to sell the suit land and there is likehood of consumption of long time and expenditure. Defendant No. 1 - Banke Lal advised him to file the suit and he shall enter into a compromise with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also admitted that he has paid Rs. 42,000/- to Banke Lal. Defendant Banke Lal in his admission, has categorically admitted that after receiving the land on lease from the Government he was not entitled to sell the suit land. The lease of the land was for maintenance of the defendant No. 1 and he was not empowered to sell the property under the lease agreement. 42,000/- to Banke Lal. Defendant Banke Lal in his admission, has categorically admitted that after receiving the land on lease from the Government he was not entitled to sell the suit land. The lease of the land was for maintenance of the defendant No. 1 and he was not empowered to sell the property under the lease agreement. Thus, with an intention to avoid the legal bar of sale, collusive suit was filed between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 Banke Lal without any right wanted to transfer the suit property without executing any sale deed. On the advise of the defendant No. 1 Banke Lal, collusive suit was filed in which the defendant No. 1 had entered into a compromise with the plaintiff. Since the defendant No. 1 - Banke Lal has no saleable interest in the suit property, the compromise by defendant No. 1 with the plaintiff will not confer any right in favour of the plaintiff. The Courts below have rightly rejected the application for compromise and rightly dismissed the suit. Concurrent finding of fact is recorded by the Courts below that the plaintiff has failed to prove adverse possession. The plaintiff himself has admitted that he wanted to purchase the suit property from defendant No. 1 - Banke Lal and to secure possession of the suit land. The plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the suit land. No error is committed by the Courts below in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff: No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal fails and is dismissed summarily.