JUDGMENT : Rohit Arya, J. 1. This appeal under Section 100 CPC by plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29/3/2005 in civil appeal No. 44A/2004 confirming judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 4/3/2003 in civil suit No. 16A/2002. Plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal and as on record are to the effect that the suit land admeasuring 1.150 hectare falling in survey No. 111 of village Rajakhedi is recorded in the name of defendant no.1 as Bhoomiswami in revenue records. Plaintiff claims to be in possession of the suit land for last 20 years to the knowledge of defendants uninterruptedly, continuously and peacefully, accordingly he has acquired title by adverse possession. He is ploughing the field and harvesting the crops. Having the apprehension of being forcibly dispossessed by defendant no.1 on 26/12/2001, the instant suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction. 3. Defendant no.1 filed written statement and denied the plaint allegations. It is inter alia contended that the suit land was purchased from its erstwhile owner Baldeva son of Rama in the year 1975 by registered sale deed dated 17/3/1975. Thereafter, the name of defendant no.1 was recorded in the revenue records. Defendant no.1 is in possession of the suit land. Earlier defendant no.1 had filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession in the court of Civil Judge, Class-I, Raghogarh against Baldeva son of Rama and Ghotya son of Champa vide civil suit No. 32A/1975. That suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff by judgment and decree dated 7/10/1997. The appeal arising therefrom at the instance of the aforesaid defendants was dismissed and confirmed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 292/1980 vide judgment and decree dated 23/11/1991. In execution proceedings the possession of the suit land was handed over to defendant no.1 herein on 4/11/2001. Now the aforesaid defendants, namely, Baldeva and Ghotya with the shield of plaintiff have brought the suit to take possession of the suit land. They tried to again disturb the possession of defendant no.1 by allowing the cattle to graze the field. Complaint in that regard has already been made in the concerned police station. With the aforesaid pleadings, it is prayed that the suit is based on concocted and fabricated facts and merit dismissal. 4. They tried to again disturb the possession of defendant no.1 by allowing the cattle to graze the field. Complaint in that regard has already been made in the concerned police station. With the aforesaid pleadings, it is prayed that the suit is based on concocted and fabricated facts and merit dismissal. 4. Trial Court on aforesaid pleadings framed issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. Upon critical evaluation of the evidence, trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the first appellate court has reconsidered the entire evidence on record and has found that the plaintiff has failed to establish the alleged claim of perfection of title by adverse possession. In fact the defendant no.1 has been found to be in possession of the suit land, who was sought to be dispossessed and thereafter the instant suit is filed. With the aforesaid findings the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was confirmed. 5. Having gone through the judgment and decree impugned, this Court is of the view that both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 9. 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 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. (See : S.M. Karim Vs. Bibi Sakina, : AIR 1964 SCC 1254 : Parisinii Vs. Sukh, : (1993) 4 SCC 375 : (1003 AIR SCW 3606) and D.N. Venkatarayappa Vs 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. 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 )." 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no question of law much less substantial question of law arises in this second appeal warranting interference under Section 100 CPC. 11. Though the plaintiff has claimed to be in possession of the suit land and argued that he may not be dispossessed without due process of law, however, looking to the fact that plaintiff has not been found to be in possession of the suit land by both the courts below, no direction in that behalf is warranted. Needless to observe that in our legal system, possession of any person cannot be removed without due process of law. 12. Accordingly, the second appeal sans merits and is hereby dismissed.