ARUN MISHRA, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal has been referred by the learned single Judge on 9-7-1998 under Clause 9 (1) of Chapter I of High Court Rules and Orders in M. P. The single Judge has opined that one of the questions falling for determination is a question of importance, hence entire matter be heard by a Bench of two Judges. ( 2 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff/appellant aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court on 14-12-1983, which judgment and decree has been affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court as per judgment and decree dated 11-8-1988. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff/appellant has filed a suit for restoration of possession of agricultural land in area 1. 97 acre out of Survey No. 644/3, which was of total area 12 acres and for mesne profits on the averment that plaintiff is the Bhumi Swami of Survey No. 644/3 in area 12 acres. ( 4 ) IN the year 1973 defendants Nos. 1 to 6 have encroached upon 1. 97 acres of the aforesaid land which was shown in the plaint map with red ink. Plaintiff has got his land measured and found that defendants were in possession of the aforesaid portion of the land which was part of Survey No. 644/3. Defendants' land is Survey No. 639/3, which was recorded in "the name of defendants Nos. ' 7 and 8, however, defendants Nos. 1 to 6 were in actual possession of Survey No. 639/3. Land of defendants Nos. 7 and 8 was also adjacent, hence they were also impleaded as defendants. In spite of notice, possession was not given back hence plaintiff has filed a suit. ( 5 ) IN the written statement filed by the defendants it was contended that plaintiff is not the Bhumi Swami of the disputed land. Land was not encroached upon in July, 1972. The land is ancestral land of the defendants. They are continuously in possession since long. There is medh between the land of the plaintiff and defendants right from beginning. There were several trees on medh, which demarcates the agricultural field of the parties. Measurement was never done in the presence of the defendants. They were never informed of the Measurement by the Revenue Court. The defendants are in possession as owner of the land. There is medh between the land of the plaintiff and defendants right from beginning. There were several trees on medh, which demarcates the agricultural field of the parties. Measurement was never done in the presence of the defendants. They were never informed of the Measurement by the Revenue Court. The defendants are in possession as owner of the land. They have continued in possession peacefully without any interruption since long. The plaintiff is not entitled for restoration of possession. He has never remained in possession of the land. In the alternative plea of adverse possession was also set up in the special plea. It was further contended that in the year 1951-52 when consolidation of agricultural holding was done, the medh demarcating the land was in existence, since then defendants are continuously in possession. ( 6 ) THE learned trial Court (Second Civil judge, Class II, Khurai) has as per judgment and decree dated 14-12-1983 dismissed the suit, aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred which has been dismissed. The appellate Court has held that plaintiff has not established that disputed land forms part of his Survey No. 644/3. The defendants are in possession since 1950. They have not taken the possession as averred by the plaintiff in the year 1973. In the alternative finding of adverse possession has also been recorded by the Courts below. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the courts below, this appeal has been preferred. ( 7 ) THE entire appeal has been referred for adjudication to the larger bench by Esteemed brother C. K. Prasad, J. under clause 9 (1) of Chapter I of High Court Rules and Orders in M. P. , following substantial questions of law have been framed by this Court while admitting the appeal on 3-3-1989. ( 7 ) THE entire appeal has been referred for adjudication to the larger bench by Esteemed brother C. K. Prasad, J. under clause 9 (1) of Chapter I of High Court Rules and Orders in M. P. , following substantial questions of law have been framed by this Court while admitting the appeal on 3-3-1989. (1) Whether the Courts below erred in law in finding that the defendants-respondents acquired title in respect of the suit land by their adverse possession over the same for a period of more than 12 years ?" (2) "whether the Courts below erred in law in finding that the suit for possession, filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendants-respondents was barred by limitation ?" (3) "whether the first appellate Court should have allowed the application made by the plaintiff-appellant for producing additional documentary evidence ?" ( 8 ) SHRI Pranay Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the possession of the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 was apparently under the mistake as they were not aware of the boundaries of their land. On demarcation it was found by the Revenue Court that land forms a part of the plaintiffs Survey No. 644/3. as such courts below have erred in law in giving the finding of adverse possession. He has further submitted that both the Courts below ought to have held that land forms a part of survey No. 644/3. Thus the suit filed by the plaintiff ought to have been decreed. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex court. In Deva (dead) through LRs v. Sajjan kumar (dead) by LRs. (2003) 7 SCC 481 : ( AIR 2003 SC 3907 ) decision of this Court in Second Appeal No. 856/1973, Narayan v. Sheikh Hussain, decided on 4-3-1980 and decision of this Court in S. A. No. 669/78, niru v. Ram Singh decided on 8-8-1984 along with three other appeals in which it is opined that possession under mistake is not adverse. ( 9 ) NONE has put in appearance on behalf of respondents, though served. ( 10 ) PLAINTIFF has filed a suit for restoration of possession. In a suit for restoration of possession, it is a trite law that plaintiff can recover the possession only in case he has proved his title to the suit land. ( 9 ) NONE has put in appearance on behalf of respondents, though served. ( 10 ) PLAINTIFF has filed a suit for restoration of possession. In a suit for restoration of possession, it is a trite law that plaintiff can recover the possession only in case he has proved his title to the suit land. The first question which arises for consideration is whether plaintiff has been able to establish his Bhumi Swami rights over the disputed land. Precise question is whether it has been established by the plaintiff whether disputed land forms part of Survey No. 644/3. The first Appellate Court has given a clear finding that plaintiff has not been able to establish that suit land forms a part of Survey no. 644/3. We have gone through the evidence. The plaintiff has claimed that the suit land is owned by him on the basis of demarcation done by the Revenue Court. The plaintiff Gajraj Singh has admitted that he was not in possession of the disputed land since 1950, which he has stated in Para 6 of his deposition. The plaintiff has relied upon the field map prepared by Shri parmanand Shrivastava, Patwari on 5-6-1974 in demarcation proceedings and on field book of the same date prepared by patwari, Shri Parmanand Shrivastava, patwari (P. W. 2) has also been examined. He has stated that on the basis of current sheet he has made the measurement. He has admitted that he has not mentioned the total area of 644/3 in the map and field book. He was unable to state the area of adjoining survey No. 639/2 and 639/3. He has measured the land with the help of 'chanda' not with the Scale. He was unable to state whether Survey No. 644/3 is of 14 acres because he has not measured the total area. He was unable to state where are written notices. He was unable to state even the name of single person, who was present at the time of measurement. He has further admitted in Para 3 of his cross-examination that he has shown 1. 97 acre area in Ex. (P. 1)Field Map in Survey No. 639/2 whereas in map it was mentioned as 639/3. He has mentioned it due to his mistake. The Court has marked the aforesaid portion as 'ab'. He had admitted that there was medh in between the portion 'ab'. 97 acre area in Ex. (P. 1)Field Map in Survey No. 639/2 whereas in map it was mentioned as 639/3. He has mentioned it due to his mistake. The Court has marked the aforesaid portion as 'ab'. He had admitted that there was medh in between the portion 'ab'. He was unable to state whether there was any tree on the medh. He has not taken out the measurement of area of 644/3 from field map. ( 11 ) IN view of the aforesaid statement of the Patwari, it is clear that defendants were not noticed before so-called demarcation was made and in the absence of measurement of entire survey No. 644/3, and other adjoining Survey numbers of defendants, it was not possible to determine the exact portion of encroachment. Other survey Nos. 639/2 and 639/3 were also required to be measured in toto from at least three fixed points. The Patwari has owned that there was mistake in the map itself, which was prepared by him at the time of measurement. He has not shown the existence of the medh also, which he has admitted. He has also admitted in para 2 that he was unable to state the area of 644/3 on the basis of the map whether it was of 14 acres or not, as he has not measured the area of map. In the absence of measurement of the land of the defendants and the plaintiff, it was not possible to determine the extent of boundaries and encroachment, thus we are of the considered opinion that on the basis of the so-called demarcation report, field map, field book and statement of Patwari, the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove that disputed land forms part of his Survey No. 644/3. To prove the title on suit land in a suit for ejectment is a sine qua non, which has not been established. Thus the plaintiff has failed to prove that the land in question forms part of his Survey No. 644/3 on the basis of aforesaid evidence, we find that finding recorded by the First Appellate Court is proper. There is no infirmity in the same. It is a finding of fact which we find to be correct, hence we find no case for restoration of possession is made out. There is no infirmity in the same. It is a finding of fact which we find to be correct, hence we find no case for restoration of possession is made out. ( 12 ) COMING to the first substantial question of law, which has been framed whether respondents have acquired title in respect of the suit land by their adverse possession over the same for a period of more than 12 years? We find that the plaintiff has not been able to establish his title over the suit land, the basic pleading of the defendants is that they are the owner of the disputed land since ancestral time. The plaintiff has never remained in possession only as an alternative, they have taken the plea of adverse possession. In the alternative finding as to adverse possession has been recorded by the learned Courts below, hence as the plaintiff has not been able to establish his title, the question of adverse possession does not arise and the submission raised by Shri pranay Verma, learned counsel for the appellant that possession was under the mistake as to the boundaries of their land by the defendants does not survive for consideration, though it is clear that possession under the mistake cannot be adverse as there has to be hostile animus and assertion of the title and adverse possession can be over the land of someone else not one's own property. In the instant case the defendants have taken as an alternative plea of adverse possession as the plaintiff has failed to prove the title, which is necessary to prove in suit for ejectment, in our opinion plaintiff cannot succeed. We agree with the submission of Shri Pranay verma that possession under the mistake, cannot be said to be adverse as laid down by the Apex Court in Deva (dead) through LRs. v. Sajjan Kumar (dead) by LRs. ( AIR 2003 SC 3907 ) (supra)but that is of no help to plaintiff. The question of adverse possession is mixed question of law and fact. It need not be reiterated that facts and circumstances of each case have to be appreciated by the Courts whether possession was under the mistake or in assertion of title. ( AIR 2003 SC 3907 ) (supra)but that is of no help to plaintiff. The question of adverse possession is mixed question of law and fact. It need not be reiterated that facts and circumstances of each case have to be appreciated by the Courts whether possession was under the mistake or in assertion of title. In the instant case it is apparent that there was medh in between the two lands since the time before consolidation of holdings took place in the year 1951-52 and plaintiff himself has admitted that he has never remained in possession of the land since 1950. Thereafter consolidation of holding has taken place which is final and binding and medh was in existence. There were trees also between two agricultural fields of the plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff has made an effort to usurp the land belonging to the defendant under the guise of ex parte demarcation in which measurement of all survey numbers in question was not made. Thus we are of the opinion that plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his title to the land in question, hence the Courts below are justified in dismissing the suit. ( 13 ) THE second substantial question of law does not arise as we have found that plaintiff has not been able to prove his title to the suit land, hence question of adverse possession and limitation are of academic importance in the instant case. ( 14 ) THE third substantial question of law which has been framed with respect to the additional evidence, application for additional evidence filed under Order 41, Rule 27 has not been pressed by Shri Pranay verma, learned counsel for the appellant. However, we have gone through the aforesaid application filed under Order 41, Rule 27. The plaintiff has filed certified copies of the Khasra Nos. 68, 69, 63, 64, 67 and 68. They are of no value. Khasras were not at all material for determining the boundaries, thus we find that third substantial question of law also does not arise. ( 15 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred. Appeal dismissed. .