Judgment 1. The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decrees passed by the courts below whereby it has been found that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of land measuring 1 bigha 6 Biswas as the same is in illegal possession of the defendant. It is the pleaded case of the defendant that he is in possession of this land as owner since the year 1940. He has further pleaded that the Varsha Singh defendant was in possession of his land and the plaintiff never objected or raised any objection with regard to his illegal possession or encroachment by the defendant. 2. It has been found by both the courts below that in the demarcation report dated 16.6.1982 Ex. D.3, the defendant was found to be in possession of the land owned by the plaintiff and thus, passed decree on the basis of such demarcation report. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the plaintiff has admitted the possession of the defendants 4-5 years prior to the demarcation and therefore, the appellant has perfected his possession into that of owner on the date of filing of the suit. However, this argument cannot be accepted for the reasons that the defendant had not admitted the plaintiff to be owner of the land when he entered into the possession of the suit property. The dispute between the parties was regarding demarcation of the property. Once the property has been demarcated, only then the plaintiff got a cause of action to seek possession and therefore, on the date of filing of the suit it cannot be said that the defendant has perfected his title. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Deva (Dead) thr. Lrs. Vs. Sajjan Kumar (Dead)by Lrs.2004 (1) PLR 657 to contend that ignoring the important piece of evidence in the nature of admission of a party would raise a substantial question of law. However, the principle laid down in the said judgment has no applicability in the facts of the present case. At best, it can be said that the plaintiff has admitted the possession of the defendant 4-5 years prior to the demarcation. However, the principle laid down in the said judgment has no applicability in the facts of the present case. At best, it can be said that the plaintiff has admitted the possession of the defendant 4-5 years prior to the demarcation. It is well settled that mere long possession without assertion of adverse title not only to the knowledge of true owner but sufficient in continuity and hostility has to be established by the defendant. 5. In view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below, I do not find any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Dismissed.