S.K.Gangele, J.

( 1. ) Plaintiff-appellant has filed appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5.8.1994 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Narsingh Gargh, in Civil Appeal No. 38-A/93 affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.3.1993 passed by the Civil Judge Class I Narsingh Gargh, in Civil Suit No. 10-A/78.

( 2. ) This appeal was admitted vide order dated 24.7.1996 on the following substantial questions of law :-

(1) Whether the two Courts below erred in law in holding that the appellant-plaintiff has not perfected his title to suit land by adverse possession even when it was admitted by the defendant that the plaintiff has been in unlawful and continuous possession for more than 12 years preceding the filing of the suit? (2) Whether under the facts and cir cumstances of the case, the defendants counter claim for possession could not be decreed being barred by law of limitation and no advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act could be availed to the defendant? (3) Whether the Lower Court should have held that village Barasia was a Jagir village and that on the resumption of the Jagir, whatever rights, title and interest the respondents deceased husband hand in the lands in question, stood extinguished from 4.12.1952, on the resumption of Jagir under the M.B. Abolition of Jagir Act, in the absence of any plea raised by the respondent that her husband acquired any right on 4.12.1952 under any provisions of the said Act?

( 3. ) The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction pleading certain facts. Subsequently the plaint was amended vide order dated 11.7.1985. By the aforesaid amendment the plaintiff has taken the plea of adverse possession. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that he was put in possession over the suit land in the year of 1964 and since then he has been in possession over the suit land, hence he perfected his title by adverse possession. Earlier he pleaded that he filed an application before the Tehsildar on 24.7.1964 under Sections 190 and 110 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code for grant of Bhumiswami right on the basis of Shikmi. The Tehsildar dismissed his application thereafter he filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer and then to the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. All the authorities have dismissed the claim of the appellant then he filed the suit.

( 4. ) The defendant denied the title of the plaintiff and pleaded that she was the owner of the property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. Thereafter, he filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of the Trial Court. The Appellate Court remanded case to the Trial Court vide judgment dated 22.2.1993 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2-A of 1991. Thereafter, the Trial Court recorded the evidence and submitted the findings to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant.

( 5. ) The claim of the plaintiff is with regard to declaration and permanent injunction of agriculture land area 16.339 hectares situated at Village Khersiya (hereinafter called as suit land). Main contention of the appellant is with regard to the adverse possession. It has been pleaded by the plaintiff that he was put in possession over the land in the year of 1964 and since then he has been in continuous possession.

( 6. ) Both the Courts have negativated the contention of the appellants-plaintiffs by holding that possession of the appellant-plaintiff cannot be said to be an adverse possession. It is an admitted fact that the appellant-plaintiff filed an application before the Tehsildar under Section 190 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code on 24.7.1964. Copy of the aforesaid application has been exhibited as Ex. P/10. In the aforesaid application the plaintiff himself admitted that the land was recorded in the name of the defendant and it was given by the defendant to him as Shikmi. It is clear from the application that there was no pleadings of the plaintif