The appellate court upheld the trial court's findings of fact regarding land possession, concluding no substantial question of law arose for review under Section 100 of CPC.

T h i s appeal under Section of CPC is directed by appellants/defendants against the concurring judgment and decree dated 29/1/2021 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Datia in Civil Appeal No.17/2019 confirming the judgment and decree dated 26/2/2019 passed by Fourth Civil Judge, Class II, Datia in Civil Suit No.178-A/2016. The Suit filed by respondent No. 1/plaintiff seeking permanent injunction was decreed. 2 . Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that respondent No. 1/plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against appellants and respondent No. 2/State pleadings that he is bhumiswami of land bearing survey no. 1519 area 0.14 hectare, 1524 area 0.10 hectare and survey no. 1528 area 0.36 hectare situate at village Imaliya, District Datia and is continuously cultivating the land and harvesting crops since the time of his forefathers. He further pleaded that his name has already been entered in revenue record. It is alleged that land of defendants is situate just adjacent to his land and they are trying to dispossess him and therefore, on his request demarcation of land was done by Revenue Inspector in case No. 18-A/2009-10. It is alleged that even thereafter when defendants did not stop, he initiated proceedings under Section 250 of MPLRC but no action has been taken and therefore, suit was filed.

3. Appellants/defendants filed written statement denying the plaint allegations. It is specifically pleaded that defendants are in possession of the disputed land and fraudulently demarcation report was obtained by plaintiff with the connivance of Revenue Inspector. They never tried to grab the land of plaintiff or tried to cut the trees over disputed land. Even plaintiff is trying to cut the trees grown by them on their land. At the time of Bandobast, plaintiff with the connivance of Bandobast employees got the land of defendants included in the map.

4 . Based on the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Trial Court upon detailed examination of evidence on record, decreed the suit.

5. On appeal, the first appellate Court,while deciding the appeal again re- appreciated the evidence brought before it. The first appellate court found that even defendants have admitted the possession of plaintiff over the disputed land and therefore, trial Court did not err in passing the impugned judgment and decree, and thus, after re appreciation of evidence, upheld the judgment of trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

6. After having perused the judgments of both the Courts below, this Court is of the view that the entire gamut of matter is in the realm of facts. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are pure findings of facts which in the opinion of this Court do not warrant any interference under Section 100 of CPC. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Admission declined. Appeal is dismissed.