Judgment: Rohit Arya, J. 1. This second appeal by plaintiffs under Section 100 of CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29th April, 2009 passed by Second Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Sabalgarh, District Morena in Civil Appeal No. 23-A/2004 confirming the judgment and decree dated 25/10/2004 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Sabalgarh in Civil Suit No. 49-A/2003. Plaintiffs' suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed. 2. Plaintiffs filed a suit inter alia contending that half of the suit land falling in new survey No. 125 area 5 bigha 15 biswa towards north in village Katghar, Tahsil Sabalgarh, District Morena is of the ownership and possession of plaintiffs as well as defendants No. 4 and 5. It is further contended that the original owner was Shri Gajadhar Prasad, father of defendant No. 1. About 35 years ago Shri Gajadhar Prasad orally permitted father of plaintiff No. 1 Budha, father of plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 Tunda and father of defendants No. 4 and 5 Guple to plough the suit land on annual rent (Lagan) of Rs. 17/-. Since then the plaintiffs, defendants No. 4 and 5 and their sisters are all along been in possession of the suit land, doing cultivation and harvesting crops. After their death, plaintiffs and defendants No. 4 and 5 continued to be in possession thereof and therefore, by virtue of continuous, peaceful, uninterrupted possession for more than a period stipulated in Section 168 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, they have acquired Bhumiswami rights under Section 190 of M.P. Land Revenue Code. It is also submitted that even otherwise since they are in possession of the suit land for last 33 years, they have perfected their title over the suit land by adverse possession. 3. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement and denied the plaint allegations. It is submitted that no oral Patta was ever given by his father Gajadhar Prasad to father of plaintiffs and defendants No. 4 and 5. No permission was ever given to plough the field owned by Gajadhar Prasad. It is denied that plaintiffs are in possession over the suit land. With the aforesaid pleadings, prayer was made for dismissal of the suit. 4. The trial Court based upon the aforesaid pleadings framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence and upon critical evaluation of the evidence on record, dismissed the suit. 5. It is denied that plaintiffs are in possession over the suit land. With the aforesaid pleadings, prayer was made for dismissal of the suit. 4. The trial Court based upon the aforesaid pleadings framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence and upon critical evaluation of the evidence on record, dismissed the suit. 5. On appeal, the first appellate Court again re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and ultimately confirmed the findings of the trial Court. 6. Admittedly, there is no Patta on record said to have been given by father of defendant No. 1 Late Gajadhar Prasad in favour of father of plaintiff No. 1 Budha, father of plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 Tunda and father of defendants No. 4 and 5 Guple. There is no pleading that the suit land was given on Patta to the aforesaid persons by the Gajadhar Prasad. In fact it is stated that they were orally permitted to plough the field on yearly rent/Lagan of Rs. 17/-. There is also no documentary evidence in the shape of revenue records to demonstrate that they were paying Lagan. There is no evidence as regards duration of the Patta. Under such circumstances, Courts below have held that there was no oral or written Patta in favour of the ancestors of Plaintiffs to claim Bhumiswami rights over the suit land of Gajadhar. The plaintiffs in second breath have claimed title over the suit land by adverse possession. The first appellate Court has threadbare discussed the documentary evidence produced before it in para 13 of the impugned judgment and found that plaintiffs are not in continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the suit land for the period of 33 years as alleged. Courts below have found some stray entries in khasra panchshala of different years which by itself would not establish the assertion of the plaintiffs as regards continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession. 7. Having perused the impugned judgments, this Court is of the opinion that both the Courts below have concurrently recorded findings of facts. The entire gamut of matter is in the realm of facts. The findings so recorded by both the Courts below are impregnable pure findings of facts which do not warrant any interference under Section 100 of CPC. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Appeal is therefore, dismissed.