JUDGMENT Rohit Arya, J. 1. This appeal by the plaintiff under section 100 CPC is directed against the concurring judgment and decree dated 31/07/2007 passed in civil appeal No. 1A/2007 by District Judge, Vidisha District Vidisha affirming the judgment and decree dated 22/11/2006 passed in civil suit No. 366A/2003 by Civil Judge, Class-II, Kurwai, plaintiff's suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of patta dated 31/05/2002 has been dismissed. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal in nutshell are to the effect that plaintiff claimed to be peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted possession over an agricultural land admeasuring 0.596 hectare falling in survey No. 281/341 situated in village Tamoiya, Tahsil Kurwai, District Vidisha (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land'). Though, admittedly the suit land is a Government land but it is adjacent to the land owned and possessed by the plaintiff. During the long possession of 40 years, plaintiff has never been subjected to any action for disturbing his possession, as such, he acquired title by adverse possession. Hence, entitled to be registered in the revenue record as bhumi swami in respect of the suit land. Having apprehension that the suit land being awarded on patta to other persons, plaintiff filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction initially and later on, during pendency of the suit, since the same was granted on patta in favour of defendant No. 2, prayer was amended for relief of declaration that patta granted on 31/05/2002 in favour of defendant No. 2 be cancelled. 3. Defendant No. 2 has filed written statement and denied plaint allegations. It is denied that plaintiff has ever been in possession over the suit land. The suit land is a Government land and defendant No. 2 being eligible was granted patta on 31/05/2002. With the aforesaid pleadings, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Upon critical evaluation of the evidence on record, trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, first appellate Court has again reappreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence on record. It is found that claim for adverse possession over the suit land has not been established by plaintiff to the knowledge of State Government. Suit land is reserved for charnoi land. Upon critical evaluation of the evidence on record, trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, first appellate Court has again reappreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence on record. It is found that claim for adverse possession over the suit land has not been established by plaintiff to the knowledge of State Government. Suit land is reserved for charnoi land. State Government is mentioned as owner thereof in khasra panchshala for the years 1999-2000 to 2000-01, however, in khasra panchshala (exhibit P/4) Samvat 2026 to 2030 (years 1969-70 to 1972-03), name of plaintiff's father is mentioned as an encroacher. Though, plaintiff's father was mentioned in exhibit P/4 but in khasra panchshala (exhibit P/5) for the years 1975-76 to 1978-79, the plaintiff's name is shown as an encroacher and in khasra panchshala (exhibit P/6) for Samvat 2020 to 2023 (years 1963 to 1966) in respect of suit land, name of one Ghorelal has been mentioned but plaintiff's name has not been mentioned. As such, upon critical evaluation of documentary and oral evidence on record, first appellate Court concluded that the plaintiff has failed to establish his continuous, uninterrupted and peaceful possession over the suit land which is Government land for the last 30 years to claim title thereon under Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Suit land has been found to be awarded on patta in favour of defendant No. 2 by Tahsildar in case No. 34/A-19/2001002 on 31/05/2002. However, the order dated 29/08/2005 passed by Sub Divisional Officer shows that it is stated that patta granted in favour of defendant No. 2 was cancelled observing that division (bhantan) taken place on 16/04/2001 was not correct and remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar to pass appropriate orders in the matter. The first appellate Court observed that thereafter, nothing has been brought on record in respect of factual aspect as to whether defendant No. 2 was again granted patta or not. Under such circumstances, no evidence has been brought on record as regards grant of patta in favour of defendant No. 2. With the aforesaid findings, first appellate Court affirmed the findings of fact recorded by trial Court and dismissed the suit. 5. It is apposite to state law as regards adverse possession is well settled. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. With the aforesaid findings, first appellate Court affirmed the findings of fact recorded by trial Court and dismissed the suit. 5. It is apposite to state law as regards adverse possession is well settled. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India and others, (2004) 10 SCC 779 , in para-11 has observed as under: 11. In the eye of the law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner. It is a well-settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is "nec vi, nec clam, nec precerio" that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. S.M. Karim Vs. Bibi Sakina, AIR 1964 SCC 1254; Parisinni Vs. Sukhi, (1993) 4 SCC 375 : (1993 AIR SCW 3606) and D.N. Venkatarayappa Vs. State of Karnataka, (1997) 7 SCC 567 : AIR 1997 SC 2930 Physical fact of exclusive possession and animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and possession and animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show :- (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. Mahesh Chand Sharma (Dr) Vs. Raj Kumari Sharma, (1996) 8 SCC 128 : AIR 1996 SC 869 . 7. Having gone through the concurrent impugned judgments rendered by the Courts below and the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that both the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence on record and dismissed the suit. Even the patta granted in favour of defendant No. 2 was cancelled later on and thereafter, the matter was remanded back to Tahsildar for further adjudication but this would not in any way may improve the case of the plaintiff to claim title over the suit land by adverse possession. Plaintiff has to establish his continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession over the Government land for the last 30 years by cogent evidence. The findings of both the Courts below are fully justified in dismissing the suit of plaintiff and impregnable in nature. The entire gamut of matter is in realm of facts. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises warranting interference under section 100 of the Code. 8. However, before parting with the appeal, it is considered apposite to observe that if the defendant/State finds that the plaintiff/appellant is in possession over the suit land or part thereof, he cannot be dispossessed except by recourse to the procedure established by law. 9. Appeal sans merit and is dismissed accordingly. Certified copy as per rules.