ORDER : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. By way of filing the instant Civil Second Appeal, the appellants seek quashing of the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pali, in Civil Regular Appeal No. 21/2011, whereby the learned Judge affirmed the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2011 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bali, District Pali, in Civil Suit No. 236/1998 (14/1997). By the said judgments, the suit as well as the appeal filed by the appellants-plaintiffs were dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the husband/father of the appellants, Late Shri Banshi Lal, instituted a civil suit seeking cancellation of Sale Deed No. 290/1992 dated 24.09.1992, executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 1, Kanheya Lal, alleging that the said transaction was void and inoperative against his lawful rights and possession. 2.1 It was the case of the plaintiff that he was the lawful owner and possessor of a residential plot situated at Bhadwada Mohalla, Phalna Station, upon which he had constructed a dwelling house comprising one room, a kitchen, an “ora,” and a surrounding boundary wall. The said construction, as per the plaintiff, had been duly approved by the then Executive Officer, Municipality, Khudala Phalna, who also issued a sanctioned map in this regard. 2.2 The plaintiff asserted that the land in question was originally revenue land recorded in Khasra No. 352 in his name, and that his long-standing possession had been recognized in Civil Case No. 1611/1982 (State vs. Badri Lal @ Banshi Lal Acharya). After due inquiry, the competent authority held that the disputed house was the ancestral property of the plaintiff and that he was in continuous possession for several decades, using it for residential purposes. Consequently, the Tehsildar, Bali, vide order dated 21.04.1982, regularized the plaintiff’s possession upon deposit of the prescribed fee of Rs. 5/-. 2.3 Despite this regularization, respondent No. 2 issued a notice dated 05.10.1990 under Section 203 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. The plaintiff submitted his reply, whereupon the notice was withdrawn acknowledging his lawful possession, and the proceedings were dropped. 2.4 Nevertheless, in complete disregard of the plaintiff’s rights, respondent No. 2 executed Sale Deed No. 290/1992 dated 24.09.1992 in favour of respondent No. 1, purporting to convey title over the very same plot. The plaintiff submitted his reply, whereupon the notice was withdrawn acknowledging his lawful possession, and the proceedings were dropped. 2.4 Nevertheless, in complete disregard of the plaintiff’s rights, respondent No. 2 executed Sale Deed No. 290/1992 dated 24.09.1992 in favour of respondent No. 1, purporting to convey title over the very same plot. It was alleged that respondent No. 2 had no lawful authority or ownership rights to execute the said deed, rendering it null and void ab initio. 2.5 The plaintiff came to know about the impugned sale deed when respondent No. 1 instituted a separate civil suit against him. The plot, according to the plaintiff, formed an integral part of his residential house, bounded on the east by a public way and on the west by a narrow street (gali). The Commissioner’s Report and the site map dated 31.01.1996 submitted in Civil Suit No. 9/1996 corroborated the plaintiff’s possession over the disputed property. 2.6 Upon learning of the sale transaction, the plaintiff served a legal notice upon both defendants demanding cancellation of the sale deed, but to no avail. Consequently, he instituted the present suit seeking a declaration that Sale Deed No. 290/1992 be cancelled and declared null and void, being executed without jurisdiction and in derogation of his vested rights. 2.7 The respondent/defendant No. 1 filed a written statement, categorically denying the allegations. It was contended that the land purchased was Abadi land, lawfully owned and possessed by respondent No. 2, which had been purchased by respondent No. 1 through a valid sale deed dated 24.09.1992 for a consideration of Rs. 360/-. It was further asserted that the defendant had been in peaceful possession thereof ever since, enclosing the plot by a thorn fence. 2.8 It was alleged that the plaintiff, being a neighbour, had attempted to encroach upon the land by misdescribing measurements and boundaries. The defendant also claimed that on 29.01.1996, the plaintiff had placed certain household articles on the land, an act that did not confer possession. It was further argued that the Tehsildar had no authority to regularize Abadi land, and only the Municipality was competent to grant such permission. Hence, it was urged that the plaintiff was a trespasser and not entitled to any relief. 2.9 Upon completion of pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed four issues, including the issue of relief, and afforded both sides an opportunity to lead evidence. Hence, it was urged that the plaintiff was a trespasser and not entitled to any relief. 2.9 Upon completion of pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed four issues, including the issue of relief, and afforded both sides an opportunity to lead evidence. After evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 02.04.2011, dismissed the suit, holding that the sale deed was validly executed and that the plaintiff had failed to establish ownership or possession. 2.10 Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred a First Appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Bali, District Pali, who, after hearing the parties and examining the record, dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 29.01.2021, affirming the findings of the Trial Court. Hence, the present Civil Second Appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that both the courts below committed a grave error of law and fact in deciding Issue No. 1 against the appellants. It was contended that the plot in question was lawfully owned and possessed by the plaintiff, duly regularized by the Tehsildar, Bali, on 21.04.1982 after inquiry in Civil Case No. 1611/1982, where it was held to be ancestral property in continuous possession of the plaintiff. Despite this, respondent No. 2, having full knowledge of such regularization, illegally executed the sale deed in favour of respondent No. 1, though he had no lawful title or authority to do so. 3.1 It was further urged that once Issue No. 1 was erroneously decided, the learned Trial Court, without independent appreciation of evidence, proceeded to decide Issues No. 2 and 3 also against the plaintiffs, ignoring that the plaintiffs had been in continuous, peaceful possession for over 30 years, thereby perfecting title by adverse possession. Reliance was placed on Exhibit 3, the testimony of PW-4 Heera Lal, the Commissioner’s Report (Exhibit 10), and the site map dated 31.01.1996, all evidencing possession of late Banshi Lal. It was contended that the courts below ignored these crucial pieces of evidence and Exhibits 4 & 5, which proved that the land was revenue land and that the Municipality had earlier withdrawn its notice recognizing the plaintiff’s possession. 3.2 Thus, it was argued that both judgments suffer from perversity and non-consideration of vital evidence, and are therefore unsustainable. It was contended that the courts below ignored these crucial pieces of evidence and Exhibits 4 & 5, which proved that the land was revenue land and that the Municipality had earlier withdrawn its notice recognizing the plaintiff’s possession. 3.2 Thus, it was argued that both judgments suffer from perversity and non-consideration of vital evidence, and are therefore unsustainable. The appeal, it was submitted, is within limitation and raises substantial questions of law namely: (a) Whether the land in question was owned and possessed by the plaintiffs; (b) Whether Sale Deed No. 290/1992 is null and void; and (c) Whether the appellants are entitled to regularization of possession and issuance of patta. Lastly, it was prayed that both impugned judgments be quashed and set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgments and the material on record. 4.1 Upon consideration, it is evident that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have concurrently held, on appreciation of evidence, that the plaintiff failed to establish ownership, title, or lawful possession over the disputed land. 4.2 The plea of adverse possession has been rightly rejected. It is well settled that animus possidendi (means the intention to possess as owner) is essential for establishing adverse possession. Unless such intention is proved and the possession shown to be open, continuous, and hostile to the true owner, the claim cannot be sustained. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Durai v. Madhu & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6195/2000, decided on 11.01.2007) held that mere long possession does not constitute adverse possession without the requisite animus. Similarly, in i it was held that one who admits another’s ownership cannot claim adverse possession against him. 4.3 In the present case, the appellants’ reliance on alleged regularization by the Tehsildar and municipal orders defeats their plea of adverse possession, as such reliance acknowledges superior title in the State or Municipality. Thus, the courts below rightly held that possession was neither adverse nor continuous for the statutory period. 4.4 Both courts also correctly concluded that the Tehsildar lacked jurisdiction to regularize Abadi land, and that the disputed property was never shown to form part of revenue land belonging to the plaintiff. These are findings of fact, and this Court finds no justification to disturb them. 5. 4.4 Both courts also correctly concluded that the Tehsildar lacked jurisdiction to regularize Abadi land, and that the disputed property was never shown to form part of revenue land belonging to the plaintiff. These are findings of fact, and this Court finds no justification to disturb them. 5. It is trite law that a Second Appeal lies only when a substantial question of law arises. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 CPC is confined strictly to such questions and does not extend to reappreciation of evidence or interference with concurrent findings of fact. 5.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Singaram v. Ramanathan , CA No. 4939/2021 (LL 2021 SC 445), emphasized that the existence and formulation of substantial questions of law are statutory mandates. Similarly, in Sudam Kisan Gavane (D) through LRs v. Manik Ananta Shikketod (D) through LRs, Civil Appeal No. 5272 of 2010, it was held that in the absence of such questions, the appeal must fail at the threshold. 5.2 In the present case, learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any substantial question of law arising from the concurrent findings of fact. The findings are based on due appreciation of evidence, are neither perverse nor contrary to law, and warrant no interference by this Court. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal position, this Court finds no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the concurrent judgments and decrees dated 02.04.2011 and 29.01.2021 passed by the courts below. Since no substantial question of law arises for determination, the present Civil Second Appeal stands dismissed. 6.1. The stay petition also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.