ORDER : Appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2019 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Rajgarh (MP) in Regular Civil Appeal No.37 of 2017 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2017 passed in Civil Suit No.80-A of 2018 by Second Civil Judge, Class-2, Rajgarh, by which the trial Court has rejected the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction which has been affirmed by the first appellate Court. 2. The brief facts of the case in nutshell is that the appellants/plaintiffs have filed the suit before the trial Court and pleaded that plaintiffs are the title holder of land bearing survey no.269/2, raqba 3.035 hectare and survey no.2.024 hectares and has stated that suit land was recorded in the name of respondent/defendant No.1 but the father of respondent No.1 had executed the sale deed in favour of father of plaintiffs and delivered the possession to the father of plaintiffs and after the death of plaintiffs father, plaintiffs are continuously and regularly in possession of the land holders so their adverse title has been accrued against the defendants. So by way of adverse possession declaration of title on the disputed land and restrained the defendants by way of issuing permanent injunction. 3. The defendants/respondents admitted the pleadings of the appellants/plaintiffs and produced the same for decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiffs. The respondents No.4 has denied the averments pleaded in the plaint and has stated that he purchased the disputed land by way of sale deed from the defendant No.1. Hence prays for rejection of the civil suit. 4. That, on the basis of aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court has framed many issues and has recorded the evidence of the parties and based on the appreciation of facts has passed the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2017, whereby the suit filed by appellants/plaintiffs for declaration and injunction was dismissed. 5. The appellants/plaintiffs has filed the second appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court and the first appellate Court has rejected the appeal filed by the plaintiffs affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 6. 5. The appellants/plaintiffs has filed the second appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court and the first appellate Court has rejected the appeal filed by the plaintiffs affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 6. The appellants/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the appellants/plaintiffs have filed the second appeal and has stated that the first appellate Court has committed grave error of law in affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. He further submits that both the courts below have committed grave error in rejecting the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs.. He further submits that the defendants No.1, 2 and 3 admitted the pleadings of the plaintiffs and inspite of this, the Courts below had not decreed the suit of plaintiffs. He further submits that the plaintiffs rights in the disputed land was accrued by way of adverse possession. So prays for setting-aside the judgment passed by the courts below. 7. I have heard counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and perused the record of the case. 8. From the perusal of record, it appears that the appellants/plaintiffs had filed the civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction so the burden of proof lies upon the appellants/plaintiffs to prove their case that they acquired the title of the suit land by adverse possession. (7) The law with regard to perfecting title by adverse possession is well settled. A person claiming title by adverse possession has to prove three "neck" - nec vi, nec clam and nec precario. In other words, he must show that his possession is adequate in continuity in publicity and in extent. Adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent and a plea is required at the least to show when possession becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found. (8) In the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others Vs. Manjit Kaur and others reported in 2019(2) RN 129 (SC), it has been held that:- “48. The statute does not define adverse possession, it is a common law concept, the period of which has been prescribed statutorily under the law of limitation Article 65 as 12 years. (8) In the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others Vs. Manjit Kaur and others reported in 2019(2) RN 129 (SC), it has been held that:- “48. The statute does not define adverse possession, it is a common law concept, the period of which has been prescribed statutorily under the law of limitation Article 65 as 12 years. Law of limitation does not define the concept of adverse possession nor anywhere contains a provision that the plaintiff cannot sue based on adverse possession. It only deals with limitation to sue and extinguishment of rights. There may be a case where a person who has perfected his title by virtue of adverse possession is sought to be ousted or has been dispossessed by a forceful entry by the owner or by some other person, his right to obtain possession can be resisted only when the person who is seeking to protect his possession, is able to show that he has also perfected his title by adverse possession for requisite period against such a plaintiff. 49. Under Article 64 also suit can be filed based on the possessory title. Law never intends a person who has perfected title to be deprived of filing suit under Article 65 to recover possession and to render him remediless. In case of infringement of any other right attracting any other Article such as in case the land is sold away by the owner after the extinguishment of his title, the suit can be filed by a person who has perfected his title by adverse possession to question alienation and attempt of dispossession. 50. Law of adverse possession does not qualify only a defendant for the acquisition of title by way of adverse possession, it may be perfected by a person who is filing a suit. It only restricts a right of the owner to recover possession before the period of limitation fixed for the extinction of his rights expires. Once right is extinguished another person acquires prescriptive right which cannot be defeated by re-entry by the owner or subsequent acknowledgment of his rights. In such a case suit can be filed by a person whose right is sought to be defeated.” (9) There is the acquisition of title in favour of plaintiff though it is negative conferral of right on extinguishment of the right of an owner of the property. In such a case suit can be filed by a person whose right is sought to be defeated.” (9) There is the acquisition of title in favour of plaintiff though it is negative conferral of right on extinguishment of the right of an owner of the property. The right ripened by prescription by his adverse possession is absolute and on dispossession, he can sue based on ‘title' as envisaged in the opening part under Article 65 of Act. Under Article 65, the suit can be filed based on the title for recovery of possession within 12 years of the start of adverse possession, if any, set up by the defendant. Otherwise right to recover possession based on the title is absolute irrespective of limitation in the absence of adverse possession by the defendant for 12 years. The possession as trespasser is not adverse nor long possession is synonym with adverse possession. In Article 65 in the opening part a suit “for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title” has been used. Expression “title” would include the title acquired by the plaintiff by way of adverse possession. The title is perfected by adverse possession has been held in a catena of decisions. 9. The appellants/plaintiffs have deposed before the trial Court that he was possession holders of the disputed land for the last fifty years and he submits that his father has purchased the suit land from the father of defendant No.1 but no sale deed has been produced before the trial Court and according to the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 54 of the Act reads as under:- 54. “Sale” defined.- "Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made.—Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immovable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. In the case of tangible immovable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale.—A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. So according to Section 54 of the Act, an agreement to sell does not create any right or title in favour of intending buyers. In the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited vs. State of Haryana reported in JT 2011 (12) SC 654, it was held that transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred. 10. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed Ex.P/1, Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/3 which shows that their possession was entered in the revenue records from the year 2015-2016. 11. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid documents filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, they have failed to prove their possession is in continuity or in publicity over the suit land for a period of more than thirty years, therefore, on the basis of aforesaid evidence, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court has given the concurrent findings that the appellants/plaintiffs have failed to prove the adverse possession and perfected the title over the suit land. 12. Counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs has submitted that the respondents/defendants has not adduced any evidence but it is a settled law that plaintiffs should stand on their own legs and they did not take any benefit on the weakness of respondents/defendants. He further submits that the defendants has admitted in the pleadings that according to provisions of Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act, no title can confer in regard to immovable property with duly stamped or registered in the sale deed. He further submits that the defendants has admitted in the pleadings that according to provisions of Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act, no title can confer in regard to immovable property with duly stamped or registered in the sale deed. In the present case, the appellants/plaintiffs was unable to prove that by way of adverse possession their title is perturbed against the defendants over the suit land. 13. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment passed by both the courts below are well reasoned and based upon the due appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. The findings recorded by both the courts below are concurrent findings of facts. The appellants have failed to show that how the findings of facts recorded by both the courts below are illegal, perverse and based on no evidence. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present second appeal. 14. Enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Narayan Bansal Vs. Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha (Barah Gaon) Patam, reported in (2015) 16 SCC 540 empowers this Court to finally dispose of this appeal without framing the substantial questions of law at the admission stage itself. The observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced hereinbelow :- “In our opinion, a substantial question of law is not required to be framed if the High Court decides to dismiss the second appeal at an admission stage. Only in a case where the second appeal is admitted or is decided finally by allowing the same, a substantial question of law is required to be framed by the High Court. In the instant case, no substantial question of law was involved in the second appeal and therefore, the High Court had rightly dismissed the second appeal at the admission stage by passing the impugned order. We, therefore, see no reason to entertain this Petition.” 15. The Supreme Court in number of cases has held that in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure can interfere with the findings of facts only if the same is shown to be perverse and based on no evidence. We, therefore, see no reason to entertain this Petition.” 15. The Supreme Court in number of cases has held that in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure can interfere with the findings of facts only if the same is shown to be perverse and based on no evidence. Some of these judgments are Hajazat Hussain vs. Abdul Majeed & others, 2011 (7) SCC, 189 and Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin, 2012 (8) SCC 148 . 16. Accordingly, present second appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage for the reasons indicated above. 17. Certified copy, as per Rules.