1 Second Appeal No.415/2011 01.11.2011 Shri M.I. Khan, Advocate for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff Kailash against the judgment & decree dated 28.4.2011, passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Mhow, district Indore in Regular Civil Appeal No.30/09, whereby the learned lowed appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court by which the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit land having area 0.065 hectares of Survey No.268 of village Joshi Guradiya, tehsil Mhow on the ground that the said land was owned by Smt Varanashi Bai and her name was recorded in the revenue record and he purchased the said land by registered sale deed dated 28.2.1974 from Smt. Varanashi Bai and since then he is in possession and owner of the land in question. The respondents denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that no sale deed was executed in respect of Survey No.268 nor the plaintiff became the owner of the said land by registered sale deed dated 28.2.1974 (Ex.P/13). Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence on record have come to the conclusion that no document nor any evidence has been produced by the plaintiff to hold that he is the owner of Survey No.268. In respect of plea of adverse possession the plaintiff has failed to adduce any evidence that he is in continuous and hostile possession of the land to the knowledge of its true owner. The appellant vendor not acquired suit property under any deed of conveyance. The lower appellate Court has considered this fact and held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his peaceful, open and continuous possession and as per 'Khasara Pansala' filed by the plaintiff he was in possession for the period from 1972 to 1974 and dismissed the suit. 2 Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he may not be evicted from the suit land without due process of law. As per paragraph 20 of the impugned judgment the proceedings for eviction has been initiated against the appellant and the said proceedings is pending before the Revenue Authority. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the respondents are trying to evict the plaintiff without following due process of law. On perusal of the material available on record and in view of the concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts below is a finding of fact after appreciation of material available on record. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal filed by the appellant has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. (P.K. Jaiswal, J.) rcs*