JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the appellate Court. 2. A suit for declaration of Bhumiswami right and injunction has been filed by the plaintiffs, who are appellants here in this appeal. The suit land is agricultural land. 3. In brief the case of plaintiffs is that they are possessing the land in question for near about 60 years from the time of their predecessors though the suit land has been entered in revenue papers in the name of Shri Math Shyam Bhartiji village Laduna, through Manager Collector, Mandsaur. It has been further pleaded that the said entry in the revenue record is incorrect. Since predecessors of the plaintiffs and after their death plaintiffs are possessing the lands in question since last 60 years, therefore, on coming into force of M.P. Land Revenue Code in 1959, the plaintiffs acquired Bhumiswami rights. An alternative plea has also been setforth that since the predecessors of plaintiffs and after their death plaintiffs are possessing the disputed lands earlier to the year 1921, in the knowledge of erstwhile Sitamau Estate and then Madhya Bharat Government and thereafter State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore they have become Bhumiswami by adverse possession and therefore they are entitled to get their names entered as Bhumiswamis in the revenue records. Since the revenue officers, despite several attempts being made by the plaintiffs, did not enter names of plaintiffs as Bhumiswamis in revenue records and they are likely to take action under section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code against them, the present suit has been filed. 4. The State of Madhya Pradesh- defendant resisted the suit by filing the written statement. It has been categorically pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiffs did not acquire any Bhumiswami right. It has also been denied that plaintiffs' predecessors were possessing the land in question. According to the defendant, the suit land is of Shri Math Shyam Bhartiji and this land, every year is given on lease by auctioning it. The plaintiffs themselves took part in the auction and obtained the land on lease, a year before filing of the suit and in this manner they are possessing the suit land. According to the defendant, the suit land is of Shri Math Shyam Bhartiji and this land, every year is given on lease by auctioning it. The plaintiffs themselves took part in the auction and obtained the land on lease, a year before filing of the suit and in this manner they are possessing the suit land. The Bhumiswami of the land is deity Shri Math Shyam Bhartiji and the Manager is the Collector of the district and for this reason, every year the suit land is auctioned and the person who is the highest bidder, the land is given to him on one year lease. It has been specifically denied that the plaintiffs are in possession of suit land for last 60 years. Since plaintiffs themselves took part in the auction and obtained the land in question on lease, therefore, even if they were having any right; as they say, they have waived their right. The defendant prayed that the suit be dismissed. 5. The trial Court on the basis of pleadings framed issues and after recording the evidence decreed the suit. The defendant being dissatisfied preferred an appeal which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and decree and suit of plaintiffs has been dismissed. Hence this appeal. 6. This appeal was admitted on 14-7-1988 on following substantial question of law : Whether the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, deserves to be set aside? 7. On going through the averments made in the plaint it is gathered that plaintiffs are claiming themselves to be Bhumiswamis as they are possessing the land in question for last 60 years. According to them on coming into force of M.P. Land Revenue Code they became Bhumiswamis. Nowhere in the plaint it has been so pleaded by the plaintiffs that they were either tenants or sub-tenants and acquired right of pucca tenants and further they acquired right of occupancy tenants and Bhumiswamis. Since there is no case of plaintiffs in regard to accrual of occupancy rights to them, they cannot become Bhumiswamis on coming into force of M.P. Land Revenue Code. There is no pleading of plaintiffs that they were tenants or sub-tenants. Since there is no case of plaintiffs in regard to accrual of occupancy rights to them, they cannot become Bhumiswamis on coming into force of M.P. Land Revenue Code. There is no pleading of plaintiffs that they were tenants or sub-tenants. Since there is no pleading nor it is a case of plaintiffs that they were tenants or sub-tenants immediately before coming into force of M.P. Land Revenue Code, they cannot become occupancy tenants under section 185 of the Code and Bhumiswamis thereafter. 8. So far as alternative plea of plaintiffs that on the basis of adverse possession they became Bhumiswamis, suffice it to state that pleading of essential ingredients constituting adverse possession is also lacking from the plaint. The only averment which is made in the plaint is that the predecessors of plaintiffs and after their death plaintiffs are possessing the land in question for last 60 years in the knowledge of erstwhile Sitamau Estate then Govt, of Madhya Bharat and thereafter State of M.P. But, there is no such averments in the plaint that the possession was as a owner and hostile to the defendant. There is no pleading that continuously without interruption the suit land is being possessed by them. Looking to the nature of the pleading it is difficult to hold the ingredients in regard to constitute plea of adverse possession has been pleaded in the plaint. It is well settled in law that mere a long possession of the defendant for a period of more than 12 years without intention to possess the suit land adversely to the title of plaintiff and to the latter's knowledge cannot result in acquisition of title by adverse possession. In this regard I may profitably rely two decisions of the Apex Court. They are Deva vs. Sajjan Kumar, (2003) 7 SCC 481 and State of Rajasthan vs. Harphool Singh, (2000) 5 SCC 652 . On the material available on record it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have substantiated their claim of perfection of title by adverse possession. It would not be enough to allege that they were in possession of the suit land for 60 years unless and until they plead and prove other ingredients, constituting adverse possession. 9. The lower appellate Court rightly held that the plaintiffs have not pleaded nor proved that how by coming into force of M.P. Land Revenue Code they became Bhumiswamis. It would not be enough to allege that they were in possession of the suit land for 60 years unless and until they plead and prove other ingredients, constituting adverse possession. 9. The lower appellate Court rightly held that the plaintiffs have not pleaded nor proved that how by coming into force of M.P. Land Revenue Code they became Bhumiswamis. Merely because as per plaintiffs that they were possessing the suit land for 60 years, they would not automatically become Bhumiswamis on coming into force of M.P. Land Revenue Code. A very important fact which cannot be marginalized and blinked away is that as per plaintiffs own case they obtained the land in question on lease in auction and thus even if they were having any right they have waived it. Plaintiff No. 2 Kasam Khan himself has stated in his testimony that he obtained land in auction, on lease. This fact has been totally suppressed by the plaintiffs in the plaint and when the defendant raised this plea in the written statement to meet out the objection and to clothe the said objection, it has been stated by plaintiff No. 2 Kasam Khan in his testimony that a threat was given to him to take the land on lease in auction. 10. In view of above, the substantial question of law is answered that lower appellate Court did not err in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 11. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.