JUDGMENT : Rohit Arya, J. 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. The instant appeal by appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of C.P.C. is directed against the concurring judgment and decree dated 17/03/2008 passed by Additional District Judge Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) in Civil Appeal No. 16-A/2007; confirming the judgment and decree dated 27/2/2007 passed by First Civil Judge, Class-II, Basoda in Civil Suit No. 2-A/2006. By the aforesaid judgment, the plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed. 3. Facts as pleaded in the plaint and on record for the purposes of disposal of this appeal are to the effect that in respect of suit land; an agricultural land, plaintiff claimed to have entered an agreement to sale with Barelal and Shriram S/o Ganeshram Kanchi of village Biskawali. Rs. 1,000/- as part of consideration of sale was paid on 26/4/1986 and remaining consideration was paid on 1/5/1988 on which date agreement to sale was executed and possession was delivered. Thereafter, plaintiff has been in continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the suit land. Behind the back of plaintiff, Barelal and Shriram have transferred the suit land by a registered sale deed dated 25/7/1987 in favour of defendant. Prior to execution of sale deed there was already an agreement to sale in favour of plaintiff. As defendant threatened the plaintiff of forcible dispossession on 19/10/2004 denying plaintiff's right, title or interest over the suit land, therefore, instant suit was filed for declaration of title by adverse possession and permanent injunction restraining the defendant not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. 4. Defendant filed written statement denying the plaint allegations. It is inter alia contended that defendant in fact is in possession of the suit land by virtue of sale deed dated 25/7/1987 executed by Barelal and Shriram and possession was delivered to him. Besides, it is also submitted that Barelal and Shriram have deliberately not made party in the instant suit. That apart, the defendant has also contended that earlier suit No. 135-A/1994 was filed by the plaintiff on the same set of facts and in fact and in effect for the same relief against the defendant which has been dismissed on 16/7/2002 and in fact second appeal No. 116/2003 pending before the High Court has also been decided vide judgment dated 25/9/2006. Earlier suit No. 135-A/1994 filed by plaintiff was seeking relief that in the light of agreement between them, the sale deed executed in favour of defendant-Kamaal Pasha be declared null and void. The present suit filed by the plaintiff is against defendant Kamaal Pasha only. Barelal and Shriram have not been made party. In the instant suit, plaintiff had claimed title by adverse possession. Therefore, present suit is hit by principles of res judicata therefore, liable to be dismissed. 5. On aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Trial Court dismissed the suit on the premise that plaintiff has failed to prove perfection of title by adverse possession. However, rejected the plea of res judicata raised by defendant in the light of decision rendered in earlier suit with the reasoning that earlier suit was based on agreement to sale and was for declaration of sale deed dated 25/7/1987 executed by Barelal and Shriram in favour of defendant to be null and void; whereas, instant suit is for adverse possession and therefore, principles of res judicata have no bearing upon the instant suit. 6. On appeal, the first appellate Court dealt with the issue of adverse possession in detail by adverting to oral and documentary evidence brought on record and confirm the findings of the trial Court. The first appellate Court while dealing with the cross-objection raised by defendant inter alia contending that trial Court committed error of law while holding that suit was not barred by principles of res judicata had held in para 20 and 21 of the impugned judgment that suit property in both the suits was common. The nature of relief in fact in both the suit was same as if the earlier suit was decreed, the plaintiff would have been held entitled for title of suit land on the basis of agreement and the sale deed executed in favour of defendant would be held null and void; whereas, in the instant suit if suit was to be decreed, plaintiff would have been held entitled for title of suit land on the basis of adverse possession, therefore, in either case, plaintiff's claim for title was to be examined, therefore, the first appellate Court has found that principles of res judicata did have application and suit was barred. 7. 7. Having perused the impugned judgments and decree passed by Courts below, in the opinion of this Court the findings of fact recorded by Courts below as regards adverse possession cannot be interfered with. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 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. 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 )." 12. After having perused the judgments of both the Courts below, this Court is of the view that both the Courts below have recorded pure findings of fact based on critical evaluation of the evidence on record. The entire gamut of matter is in the realm of facts. The findings recorded by both the Courts below, 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.