JUDGMENT 1. This appeal by plaintiff under section 100 CPC is directed against the confirming judgment and decree dated 22.12.2005 in Civil Appeal No.23/2004. Plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 3.7.2004 in Civil Suit No.9-A/1990. 2. Plaintiff filed a suit inter alia contending that the suit land, as described in para 3 of the impugned judgment, was given on Patta to her husband by the Ex-Zamindar in Samvat 2005; during the Zamindari era, and since then plaintiff's husband had been in cultivating possession thereof and after his death, plaintiff continues to be in possession thereof. Having apprehension of being forcible dispossession in the year 1990 plaintiff filed the instant suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 3. Defendant/State filed written-statement and denied plaint allegations. It is denied that plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. It is submitted that the suit land is recorded as the Government land and the same has been given on Patta to defendant No.3; an Ex-Army Man, by the State Government. Defendant No.3 is, as such, in possession thereof doing cultivation. 4. On aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. Upon critical evaluation of evidence on record, the trial Court reached the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish her right, title and interest over the suit property. The possession of the plaintiff was also not found proved. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the first appellate Court has reappreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence placed on record and has observed that except the entry made in the Khasra Panchshala of the Samvat 2007-2008, Ex.P-4 and P-5, in the name of plaintiff's husband that too as regards part of the suit land, no other documentary evidence has been placed on record either to show the name of her husband or that of plaintiff in the revenue records subsequent thereto or any receipt of the Lagan paid by the plaintiff ever. The suit is filed in the year 1990. For about 40 years the suit land has all along been shown to be the Government land and recorded as Charnoi Nahar passage etc. The suit is filed in the year 1990. For about 40 years the suit land has all along been shown to be the Government land and recorded as Charnoi Nahar passage etc. Therefore, the plaintiff in absence of any evidence on record in support of her right, title and interest as owner of the suit land and the fact of possession has failed to establish her claim and accordingly, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 5. Criticizing the aforesaid judgment of Courts below, learned senior counsel contended that as the name of plaintiff's husband was recorded as Gair Maurushi Krishak in the Khasra Panchshala of Samvat 2007-2008 i.e. year 1950-51 and there is no denial thereto, therefore, there is no further requirement of proving title over the suit land and by force of law, she has acquired the right of Bhumiswami, as provided for under section 158 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. It is also submitted that the plaintiff continues to be in possession and findings contrary thereto on record are perverse in nature. 6. Heard counsel for the appellant. 7. Having perused the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below and the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that both the Courts below have recorded the findings of facts based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. Admittedly, there is no evidence as regards payment of Lagan by the plaintiff in respect of the suit land at any point of time. Further for last 40 years the land continues to be recorded in the name of State Government. If plaintiff claims to have acquired the right to the suit land by virtue of Ex.P-4 and P-5, she ought to have taken remedial measures protesting the mutation of record in the name of State Government for such long period of time, but there is nothing on record that any step in that behalf was ever taken by the plaintiff. That apart, in para 4 of the deposition her power of attorney has expressed ignorance of the assertion that the suit land was given to plaintiff's husband by Mungaram, the then Zamindar. As such, plaintiff herself is not aware of her source of right to continue in possession. That apart, in para 4 of the deposition her power of attorney has expressed ignorance of the assertion that the suit land was given to plaintiff's husband by Mungaram, the then Zamindar. As such, plaintiff herself is not aware of her source of right to continue in possession. Under such circumstances, the contention of learned senior counsel that plaintiff has acquired the status of Gair Maurushi Krishak, in the opinion of this Court, is devoid of substance for want of any document awarding Patta in favour of her husband by the Ex-Zamindar or by the person holding title thereof. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that section 158 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code shall have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, hence, Courts below have rightly found that no right, title and interest has accrued to the plaintiff/appellant in the suit land and findings that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land recorded by both the Courts below are also impregnable in nature. The entire gamut of the matter is found to be in the realm of facts. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal warranting interference under section 100 CPC. Accordingly, the second appeal sans merits and is hereby dismissed. However, before parting with the appeal, it is considered apposite to observe that if the plaintiff is found to be in possession of any part of the suit land, she may not be dispossessed except by due process of law.