JUDGMENT : Rohit Arya, J. 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. The instant appeal by appellants/plaintiffs under Section 100 of C.P.C. is directed against the concurring judgment and decree dated 25/3/2005 passed by District Judge, Vidisha (M.P.) in Civil Appeal No. 27-A/2005 confirming the judgment and decree dated 7/2/2005 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 158-A/2004. By the aforesaid judgment, the plaintiffs' suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land has been rejected. 3. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that plaintiffs claimed to be in possession over the suit land ad-measuring 2.060 hectare of survey No. 35 (Old No. 23) situated in village Boria, Tahsil and District Vidisha since 1968 i.e. for last more more than 40-45 years continuously, uninterruptedly and peacefully doing cultivation and harvesting crops, therefore, on the strength of long possession claimed to have acquired title by adverse possession. Having appreciated forcible dispossession by defendant/State, plaintiffs have filed the instant suit. 4. The defendant/State filed written statement and denied the plaint allegations. It is denied that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land since year 1968. It is submitted that suit land is a charnoi land and plaintiffs are encroachers over the land and suit land is of the ownership of State Government and accordingly same is recorded in the revenue records. The Government has full competence to give the aforesaid land on Patta to landless persons as per the policy of the State Government. With the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that suit be dismissed. 5. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings of parties, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Trial Court upon critical evaluation of the evidence of record, dismissed the suit. 6. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the findings of the trial Court and submitted that as a matter of fact Vide Ex. P/7 resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat for settlement of suit land in favour of plaintiffs. The first appellate Court reexamined entire evidence including Ex. P/7, said to be signed under the seal and signature of Sarpanch Asharam, who has not been examined. Likewise, the Panches namely Hazarilal, Himmat Singh and Ors. who were present at the time of passing of resolution, have not been examined as witness. The first appellate Court reexamined entire evidence including Ex. P/7, said to be signed under the seal and signature of Sarpanch Asharam, who has not been examined. Likewise, the Panches namely Hazarilal, Himmat Singh and Ors. who were present at the time of passing of resolution, have not been examined as witness. Besides the provisions of law under which the Panchayat was held competent to pass such resolution, has not been brought on record. There is no document on record to suggest that land has ever been transferred to Panchayat. With the aforesaid discussion in para 10 of the impugned judgment, first appellate Court rejected the contention of the plaintiffs as regards lawful possession over the suit land, as on the one has the plaintiffs claimed to have in possession of suit land by virtue of aforesaid resolution and on the other hand claim perfection of title on the basis of adverse possession. Though there is mutually destructive pleadings, still the first appellate Court re-examined entire evidence on record and the revenue document brought on record and upon critical evaluation thereof in para 13 of the impugned judgment, first appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court that plaintiffs failed to establish that they are in continuous, uninterrupted and peaceful possession of the suit land since 1968. Instead as per the revenue record, the suit land has been recorded in the name of State Government barring few stray entries in certain khasras. However, fact remains that the plaintiffs were not found in peaceful, uninterrupted and continuous possession of the suit land for last 30 years, accordingly, first appellate Court rejected the claim of plaintiffs as regards perfection of title by virtue of adverse possession also. 7. Law as regards adverse possession is well settled as consistently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court and followed by the various High Courts including the jurisdictional High Court. 8. 7. Law as regards adverse possession is well settled 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 Section 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 must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. 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. After having perused the judgments of both the Courts below, this Court is of the view that the entire gamut of matter is in the realm of facts. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are pure findings of facts which in the opinion of this Court 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. However, it is considered apposite to observe here that if the plaintiffs are in possession of suit land, subject to verification, they shall not be dispossessed except due process of law.