JUDGMENT : Ashok Kumar Joshi, J. The appellant/plaintiff has preferred this appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 8.7.2015 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur in regular Civil Appeal No.55-A/2014 affirming the judgment and decree dated 26.8.2013 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur in Civil Suit no.22-A/2009, whereby the suit of the appellant filed against the respondents for declaration of his title with respect to the disputed agricultural lands on the basis of adverse possession and perpetual injunction was dismissed. 2. Admittedly, the disputed lands bearing Survey Nos.563/1, 563/2, 563/3, 563/4, 563/5 and 563/6 of village Chirahkala, Tehsil Gadarwara are recorded in the revenue record in the name of the respondents No.1 to 6. 3. Plaintiff Prahlad Kushwaha filed a suit on pleadings that in the month of June, 1995, he forcefully possessed the suit lands, claimed his title and this fact was in the knowledge of the defendants. Previously, the disputed lands were barren and full of stones. The lands were improved by the appellant who made them capable for agriculture. From above mentioned time, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the disputed lands and is doing cultivation. On the basis of the suit lands being recorded in the revenue papers in the name of the defendants No.1 to 6, whose near relative being a T.I. in police department, they tried to dispossess the plaintiff, but the plaintiff could not be dispossessed by the defendants and the plaintiff has perfected his title on the basis of adverse possession. The plaintiff had made cave of Goddess Mahakali in the land bearing Survey No.563/3 after digging it. The plaintiff filed an application before the revenue authorities for recording of his possession in the revenue papers, but the Tehsildar had dismissed his application on 11.8.2008 holding that under relevant provision of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, the possession could not be recorded. After above mentioned order of the Tehsildar, the defendants are trying to illegally dispossess him after making conspiracy with revenue authorities. Thus, the reliefs of declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession and perpetual injunction were prayed by the plaintiff in the plaint. 4. After above mentioned order of the Tehsildar, the defendants are trying to illegally dispossess him after making conspiracy with revenue authorities. Thus, the reliefs of declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession and perpetual injunction were prayed by the plaintiff in the plaint. 4. The defendants Nos.1 to 6 denied all the adverse pleadings of the plaintiff in their joint written statement and pleaded that the plaintiff had never forcefully possessed the disputed lands and had never cultivated it. Previously, the suit lands were owned by deity of Shri Deo Narayan Laxmi Mandir, Gangai, which is a registered public trust having trustees. In compliance to an order passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior dated 30.6.1997, the above mentioned suit lands were exchanged by the trust with the lands of defendants Nos.1 to 6 and their near relative Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya through a registered Tabadalanama dated 22.2.2002 and the concerned defendants are in possession of the exchanged lands including disputed lands. After revenue proceedings, the disputed lands have been mutated after partition in the names of the concerned defendants. Previously a writ petition filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed by the High Court holding that he is not having any independent title. An application filed under sections 26 and 27 of the Public Trust Act by the plaintiff has also been dismissed on 26.11.2007 by the Additional District Judge, Gadarwara. Actually the plaintiff is trying to capture the lands having title and possession of the defendants and filed suit is also a step in that direction. The defendants have permitted the plaintiff for digging a cave of Goddess Mahakali being religious persons. The plaintiff is not having any title or possession over the disputed lands, thus dismissal of the suit was prayed. 5. No any written statement was filed by the defendant No.7/State of M.P. in the trial Court. 6. The defendants have permitted the plaintiff for digging a cave of Goddess Mahakali being religious persons. The plaintiff is not having any title or possession over the disputed lands, thus dismissal of the suit was prayed. 5. No any written statement was filed by the defendant No.7/State of M.P. in the trial Court. 6. The trial Court after framing the issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, came to hold that it was not proved that the plaintiff has acquired the title of the disputed lands on the basis of adverse possession, it was also not proved that the defendants are interfering in plaintiff's possession, the plaintiff is not entitled for perpetual injunction, the suit was within limitation and was properly valued by the plaintiff, the defendants are not entitled for getting any special damages from the plaintiff and in the result, the appellant' suit was dismissed. An appeal which was filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree by the learned first appellate Court. In this manner, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. 7. It has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record of the suit and it was proved by the evidence that the plaintiff was in peaceful adverse possession for a period more than the period prescribed for acquisition of title by adverse possession and the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse. It was contended by the counsel for the appellant that from evidence of the Revenue Inspector Rajendra Prasad Soni (P.W.4) and by his demarcation report (Ex.P.4) and relating demarcation panchanama (Ex.P.8) and other demarcation papers (Ex.P.36 to Ex.P.40), it is clear that on the spot, the possession of the appellant was found by the revenue officer over the parts of the lands of Survey No. 563/1, 563/2, 563/3, 563/4 and 563/5. On the other hand, it has been contended by the respondents' counsel that Rajendra Prasad Soni (P.W.4) admitted in the cross-examination (para 3) that his demarcation report has been cancelled by the Collector, Narsinghpur vide his order dated 25.5.2010 (Ex.D.1) and Rajendra Prasad Soni had also admitted that only after seeing crop standing on the land, it could not be said that who has sown it and he had written the fact of possession of the plaintiff as stated by others. It is clear from the certified copy of the order dated 25.5.2010 passed by the Collector, Narsinghpur in the revision case that the demarcation and batankan proceedings were cancelled by the Collector and the Collector had directed the Tehsildar, Gadarwara to make again legal demarcation proceedings after noticing both of the parties. Both the lower Courts appear to be right in holding that in comparison to the evidence of Prahalad (P.W.1) and his interested witnesses (bataidars) Lalji Keer (P.W.2) and Harnarayan Keer (P.W.3), the evidence of the defendants' witnesses Suresh Kumar (D.W.1), Laxminarayan (D.W.2), Manisha (D.W.3) and Devendra Kumar (D.W.4) was more reliable due to supported by revenue documents. 8. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Gurdwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat [2014 (3) MPLJ 36 (SC)], a person who is claiming the property in dispute on the basis of adverse possession is not having any authority to file the civil suit for declaration, as such defence of adverse possession could be taken by the person like appellant in the written statement as a shield when the suit is filed by the other side but on the basis of adverse possession, the title suit could not be filed by using such right as a sword. So in such premises also this appeal does not have any question which requires any consideration at this stage. It is clear that the findings recorded by the lower Courts being based on appreciation of the evidence are findings of facts, thus the same could not be interfered by this Court at the stage of second appeal by re-appreciating the evidence under Section 100 of the CPC and therefore, this appeal does not have any circumstance to frame any substantial question of law. 9. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have not found any substance or the circumstance in the matter giving rise to any question of law rather than substantial question of law. Consequently, this appeal being devoid of any merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing. There shall be no order as to costs.