JUDGMENT 1. This appeal by plaintiff under section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.2.2010 in Civil Appeal No.6-A/2007 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No.7-A/2005 dated 27.1.2005. Plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal in nutshell are to the following effect :- 3. The plaintiff filed a suit of the aforesaid nature asserting title to the suit land by adverse possession on the premise that since 1.1.1970 he is in possession of the land in question, described in para 2 of the judgment, to the knowledge of the defendant/State Government's officers and employees. It was only on 10.7.2005 plaintiff was given to understand by the village Patwari that he is likely to be dispossessed as the land is being allotted to some other person on Patta. Accordingly, plaintiff after serving notice under section 80 CPC filed the suit. 4. Defendant filed written statement and denied the plaint allegations inter alia contending that plaintiff has never been in possession over the suit land. The suit land is the Government land. The claim of perfection of title by adverse possession is misconceived and de hors the facts on record. 5. On aforesaid pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Both parties led evidence. Upon critical evaluation of the documentary and oral evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit having held that plaintiff failed to establish his continuous, uninterrupted and peaceful possession over the suit land for more than the statutory period of 30 years, much less from 1.1.1970, as alleged in the plaint. 6. On appeal, the first appellate Court has re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and found no fault with the findings recorded by the trial Court, however, in paragraph 22 it has been observed that in some Khasra Panchshala of Revenue Department particularly of the years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 though possession of the plaintiff is shown, but as an encroacher. Consequently, dismissed the appeal. 7. Law is well settled as regards adverse possession. It is apposite to state law in this regard as consistently held by the Hon'ble apex Court and followed by the various High Courts including the jurisdictional High Court. 8. Consequently, dismissed the appeal. 7. Law is well settled as regards adverse possession. It is apposite to state law in this regard as consistently held by the Hon'ble apex Court and followed by the various High Courts including the jurisdictional High Court. 8. The facts required to plead and prove adverse possession when the party to a lis set up a plea of acquisition of title adverse possession has to be specific as regards to period and date from which he claims possession and then have to prove that the possession was adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that his possession was actually visible, exclusive, hostile and continues over the statutory period as contemplated under Art.65 of the Limitation Act to the knowledge of the real owner. Mere physical act of exclusive possession by, itself, cannot justify the claim of adverse possession. 9. A person pleading adverse possession has no equity in his favour if some one asserts acquisition of title by adverse possession. It, in fact, amounts to trying to defeat the right of true owner and, therefore, burden is very heavy upon such person to prove title by adverse possession and for that he has to plead and establish all the facts necessary as aforesaid to establish his claim. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India and others [ (2004)10 SCC 779 ], in para 11 has observed as under :- “11. In the eye of 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 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 precario', 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 is a well settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is 'nec vi, nec clam, nec precario', 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. (See : S.M.Karim v. Bibi Sakina [AIR 1964 SCC 1254] : Parisinii v. Sukh [ (1993)4 SCC 375 ] : [(1003 AIR SCW 3606)] and D.N.Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka [ (1997)7 SCC 567 )]. Physical fact of exclusive possession and the 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. 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, and (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 true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. (Mahesh Chand Sharma (Dr) v. Raj Kumari Sharma [ (1996)8 SCC 128 ] : [ (1996)8 SCC 128 )].” 11. Having perused the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, in the opinion of this Court, both the Courts below have recorded findings of facts based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. Stray entries in Khasra Panchshala by itself does not bestow any right much less right to claim title on the faint plea of adverse possession. The conclusions of the Courts below are well in conformity with the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 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 CPC. 12. The conclusions of the Courts below are well in conformity with the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 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 CPC. 12. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff is found to be in possession of the suit land in paragraph 22 of the judgment of the first appellate Court, therefore, he may not be forcibly dispossessed and liberty may also be given to him to move an appropriate application before the State Government under section 162 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code for allotment of land as a landless person. 13. Having considered the submissions so advanced, though in some years of Khasra Panchshala plaintiff is shown to be in possession, but as an encroacher, therefore, without commenting upon the submissions advanced, it is observed that if the plaintiff is found to be in possession, he may not be dispossessed except by due process of law. Further, no liberty as such is required to file an application under section 162 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and if plaintiff is otherwise entitled to such an application under the law, he may do so, if so advised. The observation, so made, shall not be construed to be a direction or order, so sought, and the authorities concerned may take independent decision in that behalf. Accordingly, the second appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed.