JUDGMENT : Rohit Arya, J. 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. The instant appeal by appellants/defendants under Section 100 of C.P.C. is directed against the concurring judgment and decree dated 27/6/2009 passed by First Additional District Judge, Mungawali, District Ashok Nagar (M.P.) in Civil Appeal No. 1-A/2007; confirming the judgment and decree dated 30/11/2006 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Mungawali in Civil Suit No. 589-A/1998. By the aforesaid judgment, the plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been decreed. 3. Plaintiff filed a suit inter alia contending that agricultural land ad-measuring 1.010 hectare falling in survey No. 350/2 in village Ghatbamuria is of her ownership and possession, whereupon she is ploughing the field and harvesting crops. As defendants have their agricultural land adjacent to suit land, therefore, off and on, they apprehend plaintiff for forcible dispossession, therefore, under such circumstances, the instant suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been filed. 4. Defendants filed written statement denying the plaint allegations. It is inter alia contended that the suit land is neither of the ownership nor in possession of plaintiff. It is also denied that defendants ever tried to take forcible possession of the suit land from the plaintiff on 20/7/1998 as alleged in the plaint. That apart, it is submitted that suit land is in possession of defendants No. 1 to 6 for number of years and for more than 12 years, therefore, they have acquired right to suit land to the exclusion of the plaintiff. Even Naib Tahsildar in revenue proceedings has found the possession of defendants over the suit land. With aforesaid submissions, the suit was prayed to be dismissed. 5. Defendant No. 2/State remained ex parte and no written statement has been filed on its behalf. 6. On aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Trial Court upon critical evaluation of the evidence on record, decreed the suit. 7. On appeal, the first appellate Court has re-examined the entire oral and documentary evidence on record. It has been found that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. The order of Naib Tahsildar dated 15/6/98 in case No. 49-A19/97-98 in relation to survey No. 350/2 whereby defendants were found to be in possession, has been set aside and plaintiff was found in possession of the suit land. It has been found that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. The order of Naib Tahsildar dated 15/6/98 in case No. 49-A19/97-98 in relation to survey No. 350/2 whereby defendants were found to be in possession, has been set aside and plaintiff was found in possession of the suit land. This order is confirmed by the order of SDO dated 13/6/2000 in case No. 44 appeal/98-99. All the aforesaid documents are on record as Ex. P/3 and P/4. Further in cross-examination para 8, defendant Rajaram himself admitted that he has not filed any appeal against the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer. As such the findings so recorded by the revenue Court as regards possession has attained finality. That apart, the defendant Rajaram claimed to have been in possession of the suit land during Zamindari Era. However, no such document was filed before the Courts below establishing his possession over the suit land since the time, it is claimed. Even the Patta as claimed to have been given to defendants, has not been produced. Therefore, the first appellate Court in paragraph 10 to 13 has critically examined the oral evidence and found inherent contradictions and inconsistencies in the statement of defendants before the trial Court and also admission to the effect that suit land is in possession of the subsequent vendee, who has purchased the suit land from the plaintiffs. Accordingly the finding has been recorded that defendants have failed to prove their possession over the suit land. Other contentions raised to the effect that subsequent purchaser has not been made party to the suit and other co-owners were not party, has also been amply examined by first appellate Court in para 14 of the impugned judgment and same contention was discarded by the first appellate Court as there was no dispute between co-owners, subsequent purchaser and plaintiff as regards the suit land. With reference to other material on record, the first appellate Court has held that out of total land, plaintiff was owner and in possession of 5 bighas of land out of which 3 bighas have been sold by her and now she is in possession of two bighas of land. 8. With reference to other material on record, the first appellate Court has held that out of total land, plaintiff was owner and in possession of 5 bighas of land out of which 3 bighas have been sold by her and now she is in possession of two bighas of land. 8. 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.