ORDER 1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff under section 100 of C.P. Code against the judgment/decree, dated 17.10.2006, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Shajapur in Civil Appeal No. 43-A of 2005, which in turn arises out of Civil Suit No. 92-A of 2005, decided by Civil Judge, Class I, Shujalpur, on 13.8.2005. So the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether appeal involves any substantial question of law as is required to be made out under section 100 of C.P. Code? Indeed, the sin qua none for admission of appeal under section 100 of C.P. Code is to find out whether any substantial question of law is made out by the appellant (plaintiff)? 2. Heard Shri M. Phadke, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused record of the case, I am of the considered view that appeal does not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law within the meaning of section 100 ibid and hence, I cannot admit this appeal. In other words, it is liable to be dismissed in limine. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit but first appellate Court dismissed it by allowing the appeal. As a consequence, the suit stood dismissed giving rise to filing of this appeal by the plaintiff. 5. The plaintiff in substance sought declaration of title in respect of suit land on the strength of adverse possession. In other words, the case of plaintiff in substance was that he has acquired rights of ownership over suit land by virtue of adverse possession. On facts, though the trial Court decreed the plaint filed by plaintiff and dismissed counter claim, but first appellate Court negatived this plea and declined to grant declaration. In the opinion of first appellate Court the plaintiff has failed to establish his hostile, continuous and peaceful possession as against the true owner i.e. defendant. This finding is returned on facts and on appreciation of evidence and hence, it being proper/adequate in nature the same is binding on the second appellate Court. It is for the reason that the same is properly recorded. It is based on correct appreciation of evidence both oral as also documentary. In this view, no interference is called for in this finding. 6. It is for the reason that the same is properly recorded. It is based on correct appreciation of evidence both oral as also documentary. In this view, no interference is called for in this finding. 6. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant was that first appellate Court while reversing the finding of trial Court did not assign any reasons and hence, this error constitutes a substantial question of law. I do not agree. The submission is factually wrong when one only peruse the impugned first appellate judgment. In other words, the first appellate Court did exercise of its first appellate powers, and went into appreciation of evidence with a view to find out whether suit is capable of being dismissed or decreed on the evidence adduced by the parties. It is only then the impugned finding is returned resulting in dismissal of suit. 7. Learned counsel for the appellate though argued on facts but was unable to show any perversity, and/or illegality in the impugned finding requiring this Court to interfere in second appeal or to even prima facie admit the appeal on substantial question of law within the meaning of section 100 of C.P. Code. 8. A plea of adverse possession is a difficult plea to sustain. If proved, it results in divesting of true owner of the title and invests in a person who is in wrongful possession of the suit land. The Court, therefore, expects very material and cogent evidence to sustain such plea. Heavy burden lies on the person who sets up this plea. It is essentially a question of fact. It is essential for the plaintiff to prove all the three ingredients taken note of supra with cogent evidence. Absence of proof of one ingredient results in negativing such plea. 9. I have, therefore, not been able to notice any substantial question of law arising out of the controversy so as to admit the appeal under section 100 ibid though the impugned judgment is that of a reversal. The finding of fact recorded by the first appellate Court is equally binding on the second appellate Court even though it may have been recorded while reversing the finding of the trial Court. In other words, it is not necessary that in order to bind the second appellate Court, only the finding has to be concurrent in nature. 10. The finding of fact recorded by the first appellate Court is equally binding on the second appellate Court even though it may have been recorded while reversing the finding of the trial Court. In other words, it is not necessary that in order to bind the second appellate Court, only the finding has to be concurrent in nature. 10. Learned counsel for the appellate however contended that defendant too has no title to remain in possession or to claim title so also possession. I do not agree. As between the two, when plaintiff comes to the Court and fail to prove his case then he has to suffer dismissal. He cannot rely upon the weakness of defendant's case. 11. I do not, therefore, take note of niceties of factual aspects of the case as the same has been dealt with by the first appellate Court in its right perspective. The appeal is thus held to be devoid of substance involving no substantial question of law thereby not attracting the jurisdiction of this Court under section 100 of C.P. Code. 12. In this view of the matter, the appeal is held to have no substance. It is dismissed in limine.