JUDGMENT Rohit Arya, J. 1. This appeal by plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7/11/2008 in Civil Appeal No. 34-A/2008 confirming the judgment and decree dated 18/2/2008 in Civil Suit No. 107/2007. Plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction in relation to the suit land admeasuring 2 hectare falling in survey no. 460 in village Salaiya Karera, Tahsil Karera, District Shivpuri has been dismissed. 2. Plaintiff filed a suit inter alia contending that the aforesaid suit land of the title and possession of defendant was transferred to the plaintiff by way of registered sale deed dated 1/7/1999 on a consideration of Rs. 1,32,000/-, which was received by the defendant, and possession thereof was delivered to the plaintiff. Since then plaintiff claims to be in peaceful and continuous possession of the suit land doing cultivation and harvesting crops thereon. Prior to execution of sale deed an application was filed by the defendant before the Tahsildar for seeking permission to sale the suit land. The same was registered as Case No. 168/97-98-B-121 and vide order dated 26/8/1998 passed therein by the Tahsildar permission was granted. Thereafter, on payment of entire consideration, the aforesaid sale deed was executed. Thereafter, on 8/12/2003 mutation was done in favour of plaintiff. However, to the utter surprise on 10/7/2005 defendant restrained the plaintiff from sowing seeds on the suit land and threatened to forcible dispossession and that led to filing of instant suit for permanent injunction. 3. Defendant filed written statement and denied the plaint allegations. It is submitted that in fact no sale deed was executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff. Defendant is in peaceful, continuous possession of the suit land holding title thereof. In fact plaintiff in collusion and connivance with the local Patwari had got the illegal sale deed prepared and executed. It is submitted that in fact the suit land is the government land granted on Patta and, therefore, without prior permission of Collector, no sale deed could have been executed in respect of the suit land in favour of any person much less the plaintiff. The alleged grant of permission by Tahsildar, as stated by plaintiff, is of no relevance and consequence. The alleged sale deed said to have been executed on 1/7/1999 without permission of Collector is patently illegal and null & void. With the aforesaid pleadings, suit was prayed to be dismissed. 4. The alleged grant of permission by Tahsildar, as stated by plaintiff, is of no relevance and consequence. The alleged sale deed said to have been executed on 1/7/1999 without permission of Collector is patently illegal and null & void. With the aforesaid pleadings, suit was prayed to be dismissed. 4. On aforesaid pleadings, trial court framed issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. Trial Court upon critical evaluation of evidence on record dismissed the suit. On appeal, the first appellate court re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and reached the conclusion that the land in question is a land granted to the defendant on Patta by the State Government and, therefore, the defendant is a government lessee. Hence, in terms of Section 165(7)(b) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, without permission of the Collector the suit land could not have been made a subject matter of sale. Therefore, the aforesaid claim of plaintiff in respect of the suit land by virtue of registered sale deed dated 1/7/1999 without permission of the Collector cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the findings of the trial court. 5. Having gone through the impugned judgments and material on record, this Court is of the view that the courts below have not committed any illegality by dismissing the suit as the alleged sale deed dated 1/7/1999 is in contravention of provisions of Section 165(7)(b) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. Findings so recorded are impregnable in nature. The entire gamut of the matter is in the realm of facts. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal warranting interference under Section 100 of CPC. Appellant/plaintiff claims that she is in continuous possession of the suit land and, therefore, she may not be dispossessed without adhering to due process of law. In view of aforesaid, it is observed that in case the plaintiff is found to be in possession of the suit land or any part thereof, she shall not be dispossessed therefrom except by adhering to due procedure as established by the law. The Second Appeal sans merits is hereby dismissed.