JUDGMENT 1. This appeal under section 100 CPC by defendants/State is directed against the confirming judgment and decree dated 6.12.2008 passed in Civil Appeal No.2-A/2007 by Additional District Judge, Pichhore District Shivpuri by which affirmed the judgment and decree dated 21.2.2005 passed in Civil Suit No.118/2003 by Civil Judge, Class-II, Khaniyadana, District Shivpuri. Plaintiffs/respondents suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been decreed. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that the plaintiffs have filed a suit inter alia contending that the suit land; agricultural land falling in survey Nos. 6 area 3.35 hectare, 27 area 0.15 hectare, 28 area 0.14 hectare, 53 area 0.44 hectare, 57 area 1.26 hectare, 75 area 1.77 hectare, 81 area 3.12 hectare, total area 10.23 hectare situated in village Bhudera, Tahsil Khaniyadana, District Shivpuri (for short, 'the suit land') is ancestral property and plaintiffs are in possession thereof and doing cultivation and harvesting crops. As defendants No.1 to 3 intend to take forcible possession purportedly on the ground that the suit land is 'reserved forest land'. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the suit. 3. Defendants filed written statement and denied plaint allegations. It is contended that the suit land is' reserved forest land' as has been declared so in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette vide Notification dated 30.8.1968 (Exhibit D-1). No objection thereto has been filed by the plaintiffs and, therefore, no suit of the nature for declaration of title and injunction can be entertained. Accordingly, it is prayed that the suit deserves to be dismissed. 4. On the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed the following issues : Þokn iz'u fu"d"kZ ¼1½ D;k fookfnr Hkwfe losZ Øekad 6] 27] 28] 53] 57] 81 ,oa 75 dqy jdok 10-23 gsDVs- fLFkr xzke cq<sjk oknhx.k Hkwfe Lokeh gSa \ gkaA ¼2½ D;k oknhx.k dk fookfnr Hkwfe esa dCtk gS \ gkaA ¼3½ D;k fookfnr Hkwfe lu~ 1968 esa ou foHkkx dh ?kksf"kr dh xbZ Fkh \ izekf.kr ughaA ¼4½ D;k oknhx.k dk nkok E;kn esa gSa \ gkaA ¼5½ D;k oknh us U;k; 'kqYd lgh vnk fd;k gS \ gkaA ¼6½ lgk;rk ,oa okn O;; \ okn LohdkjAß upon critical evaluation of the evidence on record, the suit has been decreed. 5. The trial Court has made relative assessment of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both the parties. 5. The trial Court has made relative assessment of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both the parties. Plaintiffs have produced the revenue entries (Exhibit P-1), khasra panchshala (Exhibit P-2) and bhu-adhikar rin pustika (Exhibit P-3) and also lead oral evidence, Naresh Singh (PW1), Deshraj Singh (PW2) and Imrat (PW3) in support of the pleadings that the suit land is recorded as ancestral property and is in possession of the plaintiffs and doing cultivation and harvesting crops. The trial Court while considering the documentary evidence led by the defendants/appellants has concluded that the State Government Gazette Notification dated 30.8.1968 (Exhibit D-1) as regards 'reserved forest land' in relation to village Bhudera does not reflect the khasra numbers of the area as described in paragraph 1 of the judgment. That apart, even the map (Exhibit D-2) filed does not reflect the particulars of the area in respect of which the map has been drawn with khasra numbers, etc., Apart from the aforesaid two documents, no other documentary evidence has been produced by the defendants to claim that the suit land is a reserved forest land. Consequently, the suit has been decreed. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the first appeal at the instance of the defendants/appellants has also suffered dismissal as upon reappreciation of the evidence on record has concurred with the findings of the trial Court and affirmed the judgment and decree. 7. Before this Court, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the appellants/State contends that true it is that the State has failed to place on record the documents to demonstrate that the suit land falling in various survey numbers as described in paragraph 3 of the judgment by the first appellate Court included in the State Government Gazette Notification dated 30.8.1968 but this by itself shall entitle the plaintiffs/respondents to claim title and injunction against the State Government merely on the basis of revenue entries. It is submitted that the plaintiffs ought to have proved the title and legal possession over the suit land. Since the plaintiffs have failed to discharge the aforesaid burden, therefore, both the Courts below have committed grave error of law and fact in decreeing the suit. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents contends that the plaintiffs have filed the suit with the plea that the suit land is ancestral property. Since the plaintiffs have failed to discharge the aforesaid burden, therefore, both the Courts below have committed grave error of law and fact in decreeing the suit. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents contends that the plaintiffs have filed the suit with the plea that the suit land is ancestral property. Since the time of predecessors, the suit land is in their possession and thereafter the plaintiffs are doing cultivation and harvesting crops. By virtue of possession, the suit land is recorded in the names of the plaintiffs, in the revenue record and paying the tax (lagan). There is no claim whatsoever against the claim of plaintiffs that the suit land is their ancestral property by any other person. The witnesses of the defendants have also admitted that the plaintiffs are in possession over the suit land. Since the defendants/appellants have failed to demonstrate that the suit land is part of the 'reserved forest land falling in village Bhudera as notified in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette Notification dated 30.8.1968, they have no right to assail the findings of both the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration and injunction. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. As a matter of fact, in contrast to the assertion of the plaintiffs that the suit land is ancestral property is not substantiated by oral or documentary evidence, therefore, both the Courts below have rightly accepted the claim of the plaintiffs that the suit land is their ancestral property. The defendants/appellants themselves have admitted that the plaintiffs are in possession over the suit land. Hence, for want of evidence, much less, documentary evidence that the suit land is part of 'reserved forest land', no exception can be taken to the concurrent findings so recorded by the Courts below as regards lawful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. 11. In the opinion of this Court, the entire gamut of matter is in realm of facts. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of the evidence brought on record. The findings are absolutely impeccable in nature. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises warranting interference under section 100 CPC. 12. Appeal sans merit and is dismissed accordingly.