JUDGMENT 1. The instant appeal is directed against the concurrent judgment and decree dated 11.03.2011 passed in Civil Appeal No.47-A/2010 confirming the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2010 passed in Civil Suit No.10-A/10 dismissing the civil suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that in village Amarpura, Tahsil Aron agricultural land falling in Survey No.41/5/1 Rakwa 2.000 hectare is recorded in revenue records in the name of defendant Gola, S/o Dhola. Land admeasuring 0.209 hectare on southern side of the aforesaid land is disputed in the instant case. 3. According to the plaintiff during the proceedings of allotment and approval of patta in respect of lands falling in Survey No.41 among various persons namely Moolchand s/o Bhujbal Ahir, Gola S/o Shri Dhola Nat, Sirman Singh S/o Shri Udhdham Singh, Makhan Singh, S/o Shri Chattar Singh, Dheeraj Singh, s/o Charrar Singh Ashok Ali and Hartun Singh, an order was passed by the Tahsildar on 27.06.1984 which was subject matter of appeal filed by the plaintiff before the Sub Divisional Officer vide Case No.110/84-85 and on settlement among the parties dated 26.12.1985, one bigha of land was left by the plaintiff. According to plaintiff, on execution of settlement, he has been in possession since 1986. The defendant Gola since interfered with, otherwise peaceful possession of the plaintiff after more than 12 years of the period, he has filed the instant Suit for declaration of title based on adverse possession and permanent injunction. 4. The defendant Gola has disputed and denied the plaint allegations and stated that after division of land as per the order of Tahsildar, he continued to be in possession and doing cultivation thereon. He denied that the plaintiff is in possession of 0.209 hectare vide survey No.41/5/1 on the part of possession of land at any point of time. The Suit land has never given to the plaintiff through agreement dated 26.12.1985. The plaintiff has come out with false and fabricated facts and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. The trial Court has dismissed the suit upon appreciation of evidence brought on record negating the claim of the plaintiff of perfection of title by adverse possession. The first appellate Court has confirmed the findings. 6. The plaintiff has come out with false and fabricated facts and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. The trial Court has dismissed the suit upon appreciation of evidence brought on record negating the claim of the plaintiff of perfection of title by adverse possession. The first appellate Court has confirmed the findings. 6. Both the Courts have found that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land i.e. 0.209 hectare on the southern side of the total area of 2.000 hectare falling in Survey No.41/5/1. This entire land of 2.000 hectares has been mutated in the name of defendant in the revenue record and he is paying the revenue. This fact is evident from Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-2. Certified copy of revenue record filed by the plaintiff wherein against Survey No.41/5/1 entire Rakba of 2.000 hectares land shown to be of the ownership and in possession of the defendant. The oral evidence is well discussed in Paragraph 12 of the judgment wherein it is found that the defendant Gola is in the continuous possession of more than 25 years of the suit land of his ownership and cultivating the same. At the relevant time, the soya-bean crop was standing on this land. Defendant Gola has raised loan as against the Suit land and had dug a well. He has installed a pump-set for irrigation purpose. He has constructed a house thereon and lives with his family. He has further stated that Rajinama/agreement alleged to have been entered among Halkuram and patta holders Moolchand, Gola, Sirnam, Makhan Singh, Dheeraj Singh, Ashok Ali and Hartun Singh against whom the plaintiff had filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer where settlement was arrived at. The Suit land was never part of aforesaid Rajinama/agreement. Defendant also filed a trace copy Exhibit D-1 in support of the submission. As such there is a specific denial of the plaint allegation and assertion that Defendant is in continuous possession of the Suit land together with remaining entire land belonging to defendant. The documents filed by the plaintiff Exhibit P-1, Khasra Panchsala Exhibit P-1, Kistbandi Khatoni, Exhibit P-2, memo of appeal filed before Sub Divisional Officer, Exhibit P-3, Order of Sub Divisional Officer, Exhibit P-4, Exhibit P-4, and order passed in Case No.110/85 i.e. the Rajinama/agreement , Exhibit P-5, were all looked into by both the Courts. The documents filed by the plaintiff Exhibit P-1, Khasra Panchsala Exhibit P-1, Kistbandi Khatoni, Exhibit P-2, memo of appeal filed before Sub Divisional Officer, Exhibit P-3, Order of Sub Divisional Officer, Exhibit P-4, Exhibit P-4, and order passed in Case No.110/85 i.e. the Rajinama/agreement , Exhibit P-5, were all looked into by both the Courts. The Court recorded finding at no point of time the suit land was ever recorded in the name of plaintiff. Both the Courts have not found the plaintiff to be in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff’s assertion that he is in possession of suit land since 1985 cannot be believed for the reasons for all these periods, plaintiff had never made any effort for mutation of the land in his name in the revenue records. There is no evidence in that behalf. 7. Needless to say the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as regards perfection of title by adverse possession is well settled. For ready reference the judgment cited by the First Appellate Court reported in AIR 2008 SC 346 , Annakili v. A. Vedanayagam & Ors. Paragraphs 22 and 23 are read as under:- “22. Claim by adverse possession has two elements: (1) the possession of the defendant should become adverse to the plaintiff, and (2) The defendant must continue to remain in possession for a period of 12 years thereafter. Animus possidendi as is well known is a requisite ingredient of adverse possession. It is now a well settled principle of law that mere possession of the land would not ripen into possessory title for the said purpose. Possession must have animus possidendi and hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner. For the said purpose, not only animus possidendi must be shown to exist, but the same must be shown to exist at the commencement of the possession. He must continue in said capacity for the period prescribed under the Limitation Act. Mere long possession, it is trite, for a period of more than 12 years without anything more do not ripen into a title. 23. In Saroop Singh v. Banto & Ors { (2005) 8 SCC 330 } in which one of us was a member, this Court held: “29. Mere long possession, it is trite, for a period of more than 12 years without anything more do not ripen into a title. 23. In Saroop Singh v. Banto & Ors { (2005) 8 SCC 330 } in which one of us was a member, this Court held: “29. In terms of Article 65 the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date the defendant's possession becomes adverse. 30. “Animus possidendi is one of the ingredients of adverse possession. Unless the person possessing the land has a requisite animus the period for prescription does not commence. As in the instant case, the appellant categorically states that his possession is not adverse as that of true owner, the logical corollary is that he did not have the requisite animus. 8. Another judgment in this matter passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. Anjanappa and Others v. Somalingappa and another reported in (2006)7 SCC 570 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Paragraph 20 which is reproduced as under:- “20. It is well-recognized proposition in law that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. Adverse possession really means the hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession the possession proved must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The classical requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession are that such possession in denial of the true owner's title must be peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possessor actually informing the real owner of the former's hostile action. 9. None of the ingredients of adverse possession are available in the instant case to decide the claim of adverse possession in favour of the plaintiff. 9. None of the ingredients of adverse possession are available in the instant case to decide the claim of adverse possession in favour of the plaintiff. Findings of the facts recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court do not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power under section 100 of C.P.C. as no question of law much less substantial question of law arises. Appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed.