( 1. ) THIS second appeal, filed by the plaintiff Under Section 100, Civil Procedure Code is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-10-1982, passed by Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Sehore in Civil Appeal No. 185-A of 1982, arising out of judgment and decree, dated 25-9-1980, passed by the Civil Judge, Class II, Sehore in Civil Suit No. 53-A of 1979, dismissing the appellants suit for declaration of title over 10 acres of land of Khasra No. 202/1, situated at village Mundla Kalan, Tahsil and District Sehore (hereinafter referred to as the suit land ).

( 2. ) THE appellant filed the present suit on 13-12-1974, seeking declaration of his title over the suit land based on his long and continued possession for about 4 decades as owner thereof. His case was that his father Jugge Khan was in cultivating possession of the suit land during his life time and his possession is even recorded in revenue records since 1351 Fasli year i. e. 1944 A. D. Appellant also submitted that his father died about 10 years before and therefore, the suit land came into his possession. According to him, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sehore declared the suit land as service land and issued a Patta for 7. 18 acres in favour of respondent No. 2 by his order, dated 10-8-1972 and thereafter, Naib Tahsildar started eviction g|oceedings against him Under Section 248 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). According to him, he felt aggrieved by this order and filed the appeal before the Collector, Sehore which was dismissed. He, therefore, prayed for a declaration that he is the Bhumiswarni of the suit land, that Patta allotment of land in favour of respondent No. 2 was illegal and void and the eviction proceedings were also illegal. The appellant based his claim over the suit land on adverse possession for more than the statuory period of 30 years. The respondent-State contested the claim and denied that the appellant was or has become the owner of the suit lands. According to them Jugge Khan and the appellant were the trespassers, and have been proceeded against from time to time. Their specific case was that the appellant has paid fine for illegal occupation. They, therefore denied the ownership of the appellant based on adverse possession. The learned trial Judge, on the basis of evidence on record, held that it was not proved that the appellant and his father were in continuous adverse possession of the suit land for about 4 decades. The learned Judge, however, held that the appellant and his father were in possession of a part of the suit land since 1944 but since they have been ordered to be evicted in the year 1972, they could not perfect their title by adverse possession. The suit was accordingly dismissed. These findings have been affirmed by the lower appellate Court in appeal and hence this second appeal.

( 3. ) THIS Court while admitting this appeal fr final hearing on 7-2-1983 framed the following substantial question for its consideration : "whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the plaintiff has perfected his title by adverse possession against the State as he is in adverse possession of the land since the Fasli Year 1351 (1944 A. D.) as recorded in the revenue papers?"

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that he has been in continuous possession of the suit land upto the date of the suit and even thereafter as per order of the Court. Since his possession before the date of the suit has been as owner and for more than 30 years, he would be deemed to be in continuous adverse possession entitling him to the declaration that he has become the owner thereof. Specific submission of the appellant is that eviction procedings Under Section 248 of the Code or the allotment order in favour of the respondent No. 2 would not interrupt his possession or the adverse possession. Reliance is placed on Fatima Bibi v. hajee Muhammad, AIR 1943 Mad. 425; D. G. Nidhi v. K. L