1 Second Appeal No.755/2008 29.11.2011 Shri R.L. Patidar, Advocate for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. This is plaintiff's appeal against the judgment & decree dated 4.8.2008, passed by the District Judge, Mandsaur, in Civil Regular Appeal No.95-A/2007, whereby the learned lower appellate Court partly allowed the appeal, affirming the finding of the trial Court by which the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The plaintiff-appellant filed a civil suit for declaration of his title and permanent injunction in respect of 0.836 hectare of Survey No.22 on the ground that he is in possession of the said land for a period of more than 40 years prior to the date of filing of the suit and, therefore, he has acquired title by adverse possession and he be declared title holder and owner of the land in question. The respondent No.1/defendant filed his written statement and has stated that total area of Government land Survey No.22 is 2.768 hectares out of which plaintiff is claiming his title in respect of 0.786 hectares which is recorded as government grazing land and Patta was granted by the State in favour of the respondent No.2. When it came to know that part of the area of SurveyNo.22 has been encroached by the plaintiff, a proceedings u/S. 248 of the MPLR Code, 1959 was initiated against the appellant and when they were trying to dispossess the plaintiff on 2.6.2002, the present civil suit was filed by the plaintiff. In support of the said contention Khasra Panchsala (P/ 2) of 2000-01 was filed by the plaintiff to prove his possession. In this Khsra Panchsala of 2000-01 the plaintiff's possession is recorded as encroacher in respect of 0.418 RA of Survey No.22. No document nor any revenue record has been filed by the appellant to prove his continuous possession over the land 2 in dispute for the last 40 years prior to the date of filing of the suit. The land in dispute is admittedly a government grazing land this fact has been specifically been admitted by the plaintiff and his witnesses. In absence of any oral / documentary proof the Courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff had failed to prove his continuous possession over the land in question to the knowledge of its true owner. On perusal of the material available on record this Court is of the view that the Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (P.K. Jaiswal, J.) rcs*