JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.9.2007 rendered by the Additional District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2004. 2. ?Key facts? necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the ?plaintiff? for convenience sake) filed a suit against the appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the ?defendants? for convenience sake) for declaration and injunction. According to the plaintiff, late Sh. Balu, father of defendant No.1 Raman Chand, was previously in possession of the land comprised in Khewat No.83 min/78 Khatauni No.89, khasra Nos. 599 (old 548) and 604 (old 554) kitas 2 measuring 0-6-4 bighas situated in Muhal Sehali, Illaqua Tungal, Sub Tehsil Kotli, District Mandi, H.P. as non-occupancy tenant under the land owners Raj Kumar and others. Sh. Balu during his life time sold the suit land to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs. 3000/-. This consideration was duly paid to him by the plaintiff and the possession was delivered to the plaintiff. Later on defendant No.1 wanted to pre-empt the sale of the land but with the intervention of the well wishers, the matter was compromised and defendant No.1 entered into an agreement dated 21.5.1979 with the plaintiff in presence of witnesses wherein defendant No.1 admitted the sale of the suit land by Balu in favour of the plaintiff to be correct and also confirmed the sale. He also admitted possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. Since the suit land was non-occupancy land of Balu, it was orally agreed by defendant No.1 that as soon as the mutation of conferment of proprietary rights would be attested in his favour, he would transfer the rights in favour of the plaintiff. After the death of Balu, mutation of inheritance was attested in favour of defendant No.1 and the suit land continued to be recorded in possession of defendant No.1 as non-occupancy tenant. Later on mutation No. 378 regarding conferment of proprietary rights was attested in favour of defendant No.1 on 11.1.2002 by the AC-IInd Grade. After the attestation of mutation, defendant No.1 was legally bound to convey the title of the suit land in favour of plaintiff as admitted by him. Later on mutation No. 378 regarding conferment of proprietary rights was attested in favour of defendant No.1 on 11.1.2002 by the AC-IInd Grade. After the attestation of mutation, defendant No.1 was legally bound to convey the title of the suit land in favour of plaintiff as admitted by him. But defendant Raman Chand sold the suit land to defendant Nos.2 and 3, namely, Prem Lata and Bhuri Singh, as such, sale deed dated 1.2.2002 was wrong and null and void. Defendant Nos.2 and 3, namely, Prem Lata and Bhuri Singh were not bona fide purchasers. Defendant No.1 Raman Chand tried to take forcible possession of the suit land in the month of October, 1988. Possession of the plaintiff was continuous, open, peaceful, hostile and to the knowledge of defendants, as such, he has even otherwise become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. 3. The suit was contested by defendants. It is denied that father of defendant No.1 sold the suit land to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/- and also delivered possession to him. It is also denied that defendant No.1 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 21.5.1979 for not filing any suit for preemption. Since there was no description of any land in the agreement, it was void. It is admitted that after the death of father of defendant No.1, mutation of inheritance was attested in favour of defendant No.1 Raman Chand and mutation has also been attested with respect to the conferment of proprietary rights. Defendant No.1 Raman Chand being the owner of the suit land, sold the same to defendant Nos.2 and 3, namely, Prem Lata and Bhuri Singh through registered sale deed dated 1.2.2002 for consideration of Rs. 9,500/-. The possession was also delivered. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 came in possession of the suit land. 4. Issues were framed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mandi on 28.5.2002. He partly decreed the suit to the extent that plaintiff was held in possession of the suit land comprised of Khewat No. 83 min/78 Khatauni No.89, Khasra No. 599 (old 548) and 604 (old 554) kitas 2 measuring 0-6-4 bighas situated in Muhal Sehali, Illaqua Tungal, Sub Tehsil Kotli, District Mandi, H.P. Defendants were also restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff or forcibly dispossessing him from the suit land. The suit for other reliefs was dismissed. The suit for other reliefs was dismissed. Plaintiff filed an appeal bearing Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2004 and defendants filed an appeal bearing Civil No. 65/2005 (2004) against the judgment and decree dated 1.9.2004. Civil Appeal No. 82/2004 filed by plaintiff was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Mandi and Civil Appeal No. 65/2005 (2004) filed by defendants was dismissed on 28.9.2007. Plaintiff was declared to be owner in possession of Khasra Nos. 599 and 604 measuring 0-6-4 bighas situated in Mauja Sehali by way of adverse possession and defendants were restrained from interfering with his possession over the suit land. Hence, the present appeal. It was admitted on 29.11.2007 on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the first appellate court has gravely fallen into error by decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for adverse possession when there is no iota of evidence in this behalf, which has materially prejudiced the case of the appellants? 2. Whether both the learned courts below have misread, misconstrued and misappreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties especially documents Ex.PW-2/A, Ex.PW-2/C, Ex.PW-1/D, Ex.PW-6/A and statement of PW-1 Hukam Chand? 5. Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the appellants, on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that the plaintiff has failed to prove the basic ingredients of adverse possession. He then contended that both the courts below have misread and misconstrued the oral as well as documentary evidence. 6. Mr. R. L. Chaudhary, learned Advocate for the respondents has supported the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 8. Since both the substantial questions of law are interlinked and interconnected, the same are taken up together for determination to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence. 9. PW-1 Hukam Chand deposed that he purchased the suit land from Belu Ram through agreement dated 21.5.1979. It was scribed by document writer Badri. He has admitted that at that time Belu Ram was recorded as non-occupancy tenant. He died in the year 1993-94. The mutation of inheritance was attested in favour of defendant No.1 Raman Chand. He came in possession of the suit land in the month of January, 2002. He has also admitted that when the agreement was executed, Raj Kumar etc. He has admitted that at that time Belu Ram was recorded as non-occupancy tenant. He died in the year 1993-94. The mutation of inheritance was attested in favour of defendant No.1 Raman Chand. He came in possession of the suit land in the month of January, 2002. He has also admitted that when the agreement was executed, Raj Kumar etc. were owners of the suit land and Belu was non-occupancy tenant of the suit land. 10. PW-2 Birbal testified that on 21.5.1979, agreement Ex.PW-2/A was scribed by the petition writer on the instructions of Belu in his presence. Belu signed the agreement after admitting the same to be correct in presence of witnesses. Sale consideration of Rs.3,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to Belu. He further testified that on the same day, defendant Raman Chand also executed agreement Ex.PW-2/B in presence of witnesses, which was also signed by Raman Chand after admitting the same to be correct. Possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiff and since then the plaintiff has been coming in possession of the suit land. 11. PW-3 Bal Ram testified that for the last 22-23 years, plaintiff is in possession over the suit land. Previously, the suit land was owned by Belu, father of defendant No.1. Plaintiff disclosed to him that he purchased the land from Belu through an agreement. 12. PW-4 Hardev Lal testified that in the year 1965, he was stamp vendor and Jai Dev, Gaurishankar and Badri Prashad, document writer, were also sitting with him. He was well conversant with the hand writing of Badri. He identified signatures of Badri Prashad on Ex.PW-2/A. 13. PW-6 Mohinder Kumar was posted as Naib Tehsildar, Kotli. He deposed that plaintiff had moved an application for correction of entries in the revenue record qua the suit land. He forwarded the same to Field Kanungo for conducting an inquiry. He summoned the parties for 1.6.2002 after receiving the report from the Field Kanungo. He recorded statement of defendant Raman Chand. 14. PW-7 Shyam Lal testified that he was directed by Naib Tehsildar to verify the facts on the spot and submit his report. He went to the spot on 20.2.2002. He summoned the parties and villagers but defendant Raman Chand did not appear before him. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of villagers Ex.PW-7/A. PW-7/B was the statement of plaintiff. 14. PW-7 Shyam Lal testified that he was directed by Naib Tehsildar to verify the facts on the spot and submit his report. He went to the spot on 20.2.2002. He summoned the parties and villagers but defendant Raman Chand did not appear before him. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of villagers Ex.PW-7/A. PW-7/B was the statement of plaintiff. He submitted his report Ex.PW-7/C to the Naib Tehsildar, Kotli. 15. Defendant Bhuri Singh has appeared as DW-1. He testified that defendant Prem Lata purchased the suit land from Raman Chand on 1.2.2000 for consideration of Rs. 9,500/- by way of registered sale deed. The possession was delivered to them. 16. DW-2 Brahma Nand testified that Raman Chand executed sale deed of suit land on 1.2.2002 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Defendants were also put in possession of the suit land. 17. The sale allegedly made by Belu Ram in favour of plaintiff was not registered. Ex.PW-2/A dated 21.5.1979 did not confer the proprietary rights upon the plaintiff except to enforce the same by filing suit for specific performance of the contract. The plaintiff has only filed suit for declaration and injunction. Moreover, when the agreement Ex.PW-2/A was entered into by Belu, father of defendant No.1 Raman Chand, he was not owner of the suit land. He was only non-occupancy tenant. The proprietary rights have been conferred upon defendant Raman Chand by way of mutation dated 11.1.2002. He became the owner of the suit land only on 11.1.2002. PW-1 Hukam Chand has not stated anything with regard to the possession of the suit land. PW-3 Bal Ram has only stated that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land for the last 22-23 years and before that the suit land was in possession of Belu father of defendant No.1 Raman Chand. 18. In Jamabandi for the year 1997-98 Ex.PW-1/D, defendant Raman Chand is recorded as ?Gairmarusi tenant? in the column of cultivation whereas in the Jamabandi Ex.PW-1/C for the year 1977-78, Balu is recorded as owner in possession and in Jamabandi Ex.PW-1/B, Balu is recorded as ?Gair Marusi tenant? of the suit land. In Khasra Girdwari Ex.PW-1/E for the year 1978-79, the possession of Balu is duly recorded. 19. According to the statement of PW-6 Mohinder Kumar, he deputed PW-7 Shyam Lal, Field Kanungo to visit the spot. PW-7, Shyam Lal visited the spot on 20.2.2002. of the suit land. In Khasra Girdwari Ex.PW-1/E for the year 1978-79, the possession of Balu is duly recorded. 19. According to the statement of PW-6 Mohinder Kumar, he deputed PW-7 Shyam Lal, Field Kanungo to visit the spot. PW-7, Shyam Lal visited the spot on 20.2.2002. However, fact of the matter is that defendant Raman Chand was not present. Report Ex.PW- 7/C has been prepared by the Field Kanungo behind the back of defendant Raman Chand. 20. Now, as far agreement Ex.PW-2/A is concerned, defendant Raman Chand could not undertake to deliver the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff for the simple reason that Belu was non-occupancy tenant over the suit land of Raj Kumar etc. The proprietary rights were conferred upon Raman Chand only on 11.1.2002. According to the revenue record, the suit land was in possession of Belu, father of defendant Raman and after his death, it came in possession of defendant Raman Chand. The plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the suit land. Learned first appellate court has come to the wrong conclusion that the plaintiff's possession was hostile to the true owner. The plea of adverse possession can be taken as a shield not a sword. 21. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another, (2014) 1 SCC 669 have held as under: ?8. There cannot be any quarrel to this extent the judgments of the courts below are correct and without any blemish. Even if the plaintiff is found to be in adverse possession, it cannot seek a declaration to the effect that such adverse possession has matured into ownership. Only if proceedings filed against the appellant and appellant is arrayed as defendant that it can use this adverse possession as a shield/defence.? 22. The land was sold by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on the basis of sale deed dated 1.2.2002. They were also put in possession of the same. The courts below have not properly appreciated Ex.PW-2/A, Ex.PW-2/C, Ex.PW-1/D, Ex.PW-6/A and statement of PW-1 Hukam Chand. PW-1 Hukam Chand has categorically admitted that Belu was non-occupancy tenant of Raj Kumar and others. It is reiterated that the proprietary rights were conferred upon Raman Chand only on 11.1.2002. Presumption of truth is attached to the revenue record. The courts below have not properly appreciated Ex.PW-2/A, Ex.PW-2/C, Ex.PW-1/D, Ex.PW-6/A and statement of PW-1 Hukam Chand. PW-1 Hukam Chand has categorically admitted that Belu was non-occupancy tenant of Raj Kumar and others. It is reiterated that the proprietary rights were conferred upon Raman Chand only on 11.1.2002. Presumption of truth is attached to the revenue record. The revenue entries are rebuttable, however, the plaintiff could not rebut the same whereby Belu and thereafter Raman Chand was shown in possession of the suit land after conferment of the proprietary rights. 23. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 24. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, the Regular Second Appeal is allowed. Judgments and decrees dated 1.9.2004 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mandi in Civil Suit No.11/2002 and 28.9.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2004 are set aside. Suit of the plaintiff bearing Civil Suit No.11/2002 is dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.