JUDGMENT 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This appeal is by the plaintiff who has lost in both the Courts below. 3. The facts, giving rise to filing of the appeal, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff filed the suit inter alia on the ground that the suit lands bearing survey numbers 415, 417 and 450 admeasuring 7.255 hectares are recorded in the name of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 10 as bhumiswami. It was further pleaded that the defendant No.5 had filed an application under section 178 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 for partition of the lands in question by claiming 1/6th share in the suit lands. In the aforesaid proceeding the plaintiff raised an objection that he is the sole owner of the lands in dispute. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration of title by adverse possession as well as permanent injunction. 4. The defendants filed the written statement in which the claim of the plaintiff was denied and it was inter alia pleaded that the defendants 1 to 13 are in possession of the suit lands and the plaintiff is not in possession of the lands in question. 5. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 26,2,2005 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The aforesaid decree has been affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate Court. 6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the Courts below ought to have determined the share of the plaintiff in the suit property. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. From the pleadings of the plaintiff himself it is evident that he claims to be sole owner of the lands in dispute on the basis of adverse possession. The claim of the plaintiff for declaration of title is based on adverse possession. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gurdwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another [ (2014)1 SCC 669 ], relief of declaration of title cannot be claimed on the basis of adverse possession. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek relief of declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek relief of declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession. The findings of fact, which are concurrent in nature, have been recorded by the Courts below on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record. Learned senior counsel for the appellant is unable to dislodge the aforesaid findings of fact. 8. Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings of fact under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is well defined by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. This Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact until or unless the same is perverse or contrary to material on record. [See: Narayan Rajendran and another. v. Lekshmy Sarojini and others, (2009)5 SCC 264 , Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed and others, (2011)7 SCC 189, Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and another, (2012)8 SCC 148 , D.R. Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa, (2011)1 SCC 158 Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishnath Agrawal, (2012)7 SCC 288 , Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape v. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare, (2013) 7 SCC 173 and Laxmidevamma and others v. Ranganath and others, (2015)4 SCC 264 ]. 9. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record which by no stretch of imagination can be said either to be perverse or based on no evidence. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the instant appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.