JUDGMENT : This second appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant No.2 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2017, passed by the Additional District Judge, Beohari District Shahdol (MP) in Regular Civil Appeal 111-A/2008 whereby the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2007 passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Beohari, District Shahdol (MP) in Civil Suit No. 25-A/2007 has been affirmed. 2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a civil suit stating that they are the owners of suit land bearing Khasra No. 188/2, admeasuring 3.83 acres situated at Gram Papodh, Tehsil Beohari District Shahdol. Their names were recorded in the revenue record till 1990-1991 and they were in possession of the suit property till June 1994. It was further contended that the appellant/defendant No. 2 has forcefully dispossessed respondents/plaintiffs from the suit land in July 1998 and therefore, mutation of suit property in the name of appellant/defendant No.2 vide Mutation Register No. 192 on 24.06.1991 be declared as null and void. Hence, they filed a civil suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profit against the appellant/defendant. 3. In the written statement, appellant/defendant No.2 claimed that the suit property was his ancestral land. He has been in possession of suit land and acquired Bhumiswami rights by way of adverse possession. His father gave land to the father of the respondents/plaintiffs as security against mortgage amount, which was released by giving some other land to the respondents/plaintiffs. 4. The trial Court found that appellant/defendant No.2 failed to prove that the suit land has been given on mortgage and there is no document to establish the Bhumiswami rights of father of the appellant/defendant No.2. On the contrary, as per the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, rin pustika (Exhibit P/1) prepared on the basis of the gift deed and (Exhibit P/3) prove that suit property was not gifted to the respondents/plaintiffs. The trial Court also held that the appellant/defendant No. 2 has failed to prove that he was in possession of suit property for more than 12 years. Hence, the suit was decreed in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. 5. Aforesaid findings were affirmed by the first appellate Court holding that the suit property was neither the ancestral property of the appellant/defendant No.2 nor it was mortgaged by his ancestors with the father of the respondents/plaintiffs. No document was produced by the appellant/defendant No.2 in support of his contentions. Hence, the suit was decreed in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. 5. Aforesaid findings were affirmed by the first appellate Court holding that the suit property was neither the ancestral property of the appellant/defendant No.2 nor it was mortgaged by his ancestors with the father of the respondents/plaintiffs. No document was produced by the appellant/defendant No.2 in support of his contentions. Thus, the appeal filed by the appellant/defendant No. 2 against the judgment of the trial Court was dismissed. 6. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant No.2 on the grounds that from the evidence on record, it is proved that suit property was in possession of appellant/defendant No.2 since long, hence, he acquired Bhumiswami rights over the suit land on the basis of adverse possession. He further contended that the suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs was time barred. 7. The following substantial questions of law have been proposed by the appellant in the present second appeal: (i) Whether court below is perverse in holding that the suit land is the ancestral property of the plaintiff? (ii) Whether the defendants being in possession ever since, have even other acquired title to the suit land by virtue of adverse possession? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs’ suit for declaration of the title and recovery of possession was barred by limitation? 8. It was admitted by the appellant/defendant No.2 that suit land was ancestral property of the respondents/plaintiffs. But the appellant/defendant No.2 pleaded that the suit land was mortgaged by Gajraj with Rambali and at the time of release of the property, neither Rajbali nor Ramnaresh were the possession holder of the suit property. However, neither any document has been filed by the appellant/defendant to prove the above transaction nor this fact is corroborated by the other defence witness. 9. It is pertinent to note that the appellant/defendant No. 2 failed to produce the order of the Tehsildar passed in his favour in respect of mutation over the suit property. He has also failed to produce certified copy of the mutation register. Thus, plea taken by the respondents/plaintiffs is found trustworthy that the appellant/defendant No.2 is neither in legal possession of the suit property, nor the same was validly mutated in his name. 10. He has also failed to produce certified copy of the mutation register. Thus, plea taken by the respondents/plaintiffs is found trustworthy that the appellant/defendant No.2 is neither in legal possession of the suit property, nor the same was validly mutated in his name. 10. In paragraph 20 of the impugned judgment, the lower appellate Court has made the following observations: ^^20- oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr nLrkost iz0ih01 Hkw vf/kdkj _.k iqfLrdk ds voyksdu ls izdV gS fd xzke iikSa/k rglhy C;ksgkjh fLFkr Hkwfe losZ uacj 188@2 jdok 1-50 gSDVs;j Hkwfe oknhx.k meknRr] jkeujs'k ,oa txnh'k dks crkSj Hkwfe Lokeh esa iznRr dh xbZ gSA mDr Hkw vf/kdkj _.k iqfLrdk fnukad 25-05-1976 dks iVokjh ,oa uk;c rglhynkj ds gLrk{kj ls tkjh xbZ gSA [kljk iap'kkyk iz0ih02 esa o"kZ 1986&87 ls o"kZ 1990&91 rd oknhx.k@vihykFkhZx.k dks gh jktLo vfHkys[k esa Hkwfe Lokeh o dCtk/kkjh ds :i esa vafdr fd;k x;k gSA iz0ih05 ds cankscLr [krkSuh o"kZ 1954&1955 esa Hkh oknhx.k ds iwoZt jkecyh dk uke ntZ gSA iz0ih04 ds nLrkost ds vuqlkj oknxzLr Hkwfe ij Hkwfe Lokeh jkecyh dks jktLo izdj.k Øekad 167@61&62 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 26-04-1962 ds ek/;e ls izkIr gqbZ Fkh rFkk mldk uke o"kZ 1958&59 dh [krkSuh esa ntZ gksus o Hkwfe ij mldk fujarj vkf/kiR; gksus ds vk/kkj ij uk;c rglhynkj }kjk izdj.k iathc) dj lapkyd Hkw vfHkys[k ifji= fnukad 04-03-1961 ,oa dysDVj dk i= fnukad 08-12-1961 ds vk/kkj ij Hkw&jktLo lafgrk dh /kkjk 158 ds varxZr fookfnr Hkwfe ij mls Hkwfe Lokeh gd iznku fd, x,A jkecyh fookfnr Hkwfe ds Hkwfe Lokeh gksus ds ukrs mUgksaus oknhx.k ds i{k esa iathÑr nkui= fu"ikfnr fd;k vkSj mudh e`R;q mijkar nkui= ds vk/kkj ij jktLo izdj.k Ø 680v&06@74&75 vkns'k fnukad 18-12-1974 ds ek/;e ls oknxzLr Hkwfe oknhx.k@vihykFkhZx.k ds uke ukekarfjr gqbZ vkSj crkSj Hkwfe Lokeh ukrs iz0ih01 dh _.k iqfLrdk rS;kj dh xbZ FkhA bl rjg fookfnr Hkwfe ij oknhx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ds vk/kkj ij mudk LoRo o vkf/kiR; o"kZ 1991&92 rd gksuk izdV gksrk gS blds foijhr izfroknh Øekad 2 dh vksj ls izLrqr nLrkosth lk{; ds vk/kkj ij oknxzLr Hkwfe mudh iqLrSuh Hkwfe gksus dk rF; izdV ugha gksrk gSA** 11. With regard to adverse possession of appellant/defendant No.2 over the suit land, Devsharan Singh (DW-3) admitted that since 10 years suit property was cultivated by appellant/defendant-Rajmani. It is admitted that the respondents/plaintiffs challenged the mutation. With regard to adverse possession of appellant/defendant No.2 over the suit land, Devsharan Singh (DW-3) admitted that since 10 years suit property was cultivated by appellant/defendant-Rajmani. It is admitted that the respondents/plaintiffs challenged the mutation. Therefore, the hostile possession is not proved in favour of the appellant/defendant No.2. He was in possession of the suit property since 1997-1998. The suit was filed on 01.02.2000, hence, it cannot create any right in favour of the appellant/defendant No.2 as the period is less than 12 years. 12. In Syeda Rahimunnisa Vs. Malan Bi & Anr. [ (2016) 10 SCC 315 ], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that under Section 100 of CPC 1908, in second appeal if there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and lower Appellate Court, the same cannot be reopened in second appeal in absence of any perversity. The Apex Court has discussed about substantial question of law and held as under : “to constitute substantial question of law there must be pleading regarding question of law involved in the matter and such legal question should emerge from sustainable findings of fact recorded by courts of fact recorded by courts below. Substantial question of law means question of law having substance, essential, real, of sound worth or considerable. Fairly arguable question of law, where there is room for difference of opinion on it or where court thought is necessary to deal with that question at some length and discuss alternative views then such question would be substantial question of law.” 13. After perusal of the entire material available on record, this Court finds that the learned Courts below have properly considered all the aspects in their right perspective and also duly appreciated the evidence produced by the parties. There is no illegality and perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 15. No order as to cost.