JUDGMENT : K.K. Trivedi, J. 1. Heard on admission. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.6.2009 passed in Civil Appeal No. 21-A/2009 by the Fifth Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur, arising out of the judgment dated 31.8.2006 passed in Civil Suit No. 2-A/2002 by the Civil Judge Class-I, Bijawar, by the defendant. The civil suit was filed for declaration that the sale deed dated 14.10.1985 is void and is not binding on the respondent No. 1/plaintiff. It was contended in the plaint that the land in suit mentioned in different survey numbers was in fact a government land granted on lease to the respondent No. 1/plaintiff as he belonged to the scheduled caste landless person. The land was situated adjacent to the land of the appellant/defendant No. 1 and, therefore, the respondent/plaintiff was cultivating the land. He was away for some reasons on account of ailment of his parents from the village and when he came back, he was refused the share in the crop by the appellant/defendant and when he enquired about the fact, he found that a false sale deed was said to be executed in the name of the appellant and on the strength of such sale deed, the land was mutated in the name of appellant. The suit was thus filed for such declaration, as referred to hereinabove. 2. The suit was contested by the appellant/defendant stating that in fact the land was belonging to the respondent/plaintiff, who, on his own, executed the sale deed after receiving the sale consideration and thus the appellant became the absolute owner of the land. In fact the respondent/plaintiff was in need of money and for the said purpose he executed an agreement for sale of the land on 19.7.1979 after receiving an amount of Rs. 9,000/- as sale consideration for the said land. Subsequently, sale deed was got executed in furtherance to the said agreement. It was thus contended that the sale deed was validly executed and therefore there was no question of granting any such decree as claimed by the respondent/plaintiff. 3. The trial court, after recording of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the land was granted to the respondent/plaintiff on lease by the State Government and therefore, the appellant/defendant could not purchase the said leased land from the allottee. 3. The trial court, after recording of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the land was granted to the respondent/plaintiff on lease by the State Government and therefore, the appellant/defendant could not purchase the said leased land from the allottee. In view of these findings, the trial court decreed the suit. The appeal preferred against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree by the first appellate court, therefore, this appeal is required to be filed. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that if the entire documents are examined, it would be clear that the land was belonging to the respondent/plaintiff and the same could be transferred by a registered sale deed by him. There was no lease deed produced by the respondent/plaintiff and therefore, the allegations, as made, were not proved. In view of these facts, the findings could not have been recorded by the courts below in respect of the entitlement of the appellant to purchase the land in suit. Such a submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is wholly misconceived. The revenue records produced by the respondent/plaintiff demonstrate that the special lease for a period of five years, in respect of land in suit, was granted to the respondent/plaintiff by the State Government. The ownership of the State was not changed. The respondent/plaintiff became a lessee only and was cultivating the land in such capacity. This fact was admitted by the appellant/defendant in his cross-examination wherein he had admitted that the land shown in the Rin Pustika of the respondent/plaintiff is the same as has been reflected by the respondent/plaintiff in the plaint. The said Rin Pustika, duly exhibited in the suit in evidence, indicates that the land was belonging to the State and was leased out to the respondent/plaintiff only because he was a landless scheduled caste person. If the land was given under a special privilege scheme to a reserved category person by the State with a stipulation that the same is not transferable, no sale deed could have been executed by the said allottee. In view of these facts, the findings recorded by the two courts below cannot be said to be perverse or incorrect. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, which fails and is hereby dismissed.