JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this appeal, appellants have assailed the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 62 of 2001, dated 17.07.2003, vide which, learned appellate Court while dismissing the appeal so filed by the present appellants, upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Mandi in Civil Suit No. 53/98, dated 04.07.2001, where by the learned trial Court had dismissed the suit so filed before it by the plaintiffs for declaration and injunction as a consequential relief. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this case are that the appellants/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiffs”) filed a suit on the ground that the suit land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 226 min/214 min, Khasra Nos. 859 and 869, Kitta 2, measuring 2-8-6 bighas, situated in Mauja Kehar, Hadbast No. 290, Illaqa Rajgarh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi (here-in-after referred to as “the suit land”) was recorded in the ownership and possession of defendant, which entry was wrong and illegal, as Khasra No. 869 and ½ share of Khasra No. 859, Kittas 2, measuring 1-14-12 bighas was actually in possession of the plaintiffs in their capacity as its owners. As per the plaintiffs, their predecessor-in-interest, late Sh. Dilu was a non-occupancy tenant over the suit land and he was paying rent to the land owner. Said Dilu had neither abandoned nor relinquished his tenancy rights, nor he was ever ejected from the suit land. As per the plaintiffs, their father had thus become owner of the suit land by operation of law in the year 1992. It was further their case that predecessor-in-interest of defendant had neither paid any rent of the suit land to the land owner nor he was in possession of the same. In the alternative, it was prayed by the plaintiffs that in case it was found that defendant or his predecessor-in-interest had any right, title or interest in the suit land, then the plaintiffs may be declared as owners in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession. In the alternative, it was prayed by the plaintiffs that in case it was found that defendant or his predecessor-in-interest had any right, title or interest in the suit land, then the plaintiffs may be declared as owners in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Plaintiffs in fact had prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) That the plaintiffs may kindly be declared to be the owners in possession of the suit land by passing a decree of declaration and the defendant may kindly be restrained to cause any sort of interference over the suit land as a consequential relief. (B) It is further prayed that in case if the defendant is found in possession of the suit land during the pendency of the suit or prior to the institution of the suit a decree for possession of the suit land may also be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant and in the alternative the plaintiffs may kindly be declared owners in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession. And/or any other relief to which the plaintiffs are found to be entitled to in the circumstances of the case under consideration be passed in favour of the plaintiffs, against the defendant and costs of the suit may also be awarded to be plaintiffs and justice be done.” 3. Case of the plaintiffs was resisted by the defendant, who took the stand that the suit land was owned and possessed by the defendant and that neither the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs nor the plaintiffs ever possessed the suit land as a non-occupancy tenant. As per the defendant, the suit land first remained in possession of Sh. Balu and after his death, the same was in possession of Sh. Chinhu, who was father of defendant and after the death of Chinhu, the possession of the suit land was with the defendant, who was exclusive owner in possession of the same. It was further mentioned in the written statement that Chinhu filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the plaintiffs and their father in the Court of learned Sub Judge Court No. III, Mandi and plaintiffs and their father in the said case had stated on oath that they will not interfere with the ownership and possession of Chinhu, i.e., father of the defendant. As per the defendant, plaintiffs and their father had admitted the ownership and possession of the defendant over the suit land in Civil Suit No. 99 of 1991, which was decreed in favour of the defendant vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.1992. It was further mentioned that during consolidation proceedings, Khasra No. 626, measuring 1-0-19 bighas was converted into Khasra No. 869 and hence, the suit was barred by the principles of res judicata. It was also denied in the written statement that the plaintiffs had otherwise become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land as tenant? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is not proved whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land by adverse possession? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs in the alternative are entitled for possession of the suit land? OPP 4. Whether the suit is barred by principle of resjudicata? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file this suit by their act and conducts? OPD 6. Whether the suit is barred under Section 57 of the H.P. Land Consolidation Act and Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act? OPD 7. Relief. 5. On the basis of evidence adduced by the respective parties in support of their respective claims, the following findings were returned by learned trial Court on the issues so framed: “Issue No. 1: No. Issue No. 2: No. Issue No. 3: No. Issue No. 4: No. Issue No. 5: No. Issue No. 6: No. Relief: Suit dismissed as per operative portion of judgment. 6. Learned trial Court while dismissing the suit so filed by the plaintiffs held that the claim of the plaintiffs was based on entries as were contained in Jamabandi for the 1949-50 as well as Ex. PC and Ex. PI. It further held that plaintiffs had failed to produce any document to link khasra numbers mentioned in Ex. PB, PC and PI with the suit land and also that the measurement of the land contained in the said Exhibits was not same as the suit land. PC and Ex. PI. It further held that plaintiffs had failed to produce any document to link khasra numbers mentioned in Ex. PB, PC and PI with the suit land and also that the measurement of the land contained in the said Exhibits was not same as the suit land. It was further held by the learned trial Court that besides this, there was admission of the plaintiffs in order dated 29.03.1992 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No. III, Mandi (Ex.DE), wherein plaintiffs had admitted the suit of the defendant regarding Khasra No. 626(old) and Khasra No. 869 (new). It also held that there was a rapat roznamcha Ex. DD, dated 27.10.1997, in which it was clearly mentioned that defendants were in possession of half share of the suit land and the possession of remaining half was delivered to them on the basis of warrant of possession No. 52/95. On these bases, it was held by the learned trial Court that plea of the plaintiffs that they were owners in possession of the suit land was not maintainable. Learned trial Court also held that plaintiffs had failed to prove that they had become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession, as they had not led any evidence in this regard. 7. In appeal, learned appellate Court while upholding the judgment and decree so passed by the learned trial Court, held that it was evident from the documents on record that the possession of the suit land was with defendants and not the plaintiffs. Learned appellate Court also held that the plea taken by the defendants of a previous judgment not only stood proved but though the plaint was amended by the plaintiffs, no amendment was carried out to the effect that the earlier decree which was being relied upon by the defendants was not a valid decree and not binding upon them. On these bases, it was held by the learned appellate Court that the plaintiffs had failed prove their possession over the suit land and also failed to prove that revenue entries were incorrect. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants/plaintiffs filed this appeal. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records as well as the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. 10. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants/plaintiffs filed this appeal. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records as well as the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. 10. This appeal was admitted on 16.04.2004 on the following substantial questions of law: “Whether the learned Courts below have misread, misinterpreted, misconstrued the oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties, especially documents Ex. DD and Ex. PB, PC and PI respectively?” 11. Perusal of the records demonstrates that Ex.DD is a copy of rapat No. 72. Ex. P1 pertains to land comprised in Khatauni No. 136/119, Khasra Nos. 331/296 and 333/297, Kita 2 measuring 7-14-19 bighas. Ex. PC is also to this effect and Ex. PB is also copy of Jamabandi for the year 1949-50 of the same land in Urdu. Suit land as is described in the plaint is as under: “Khata Khatauni No. 226 min/214 min, bearing Khasra No. 859, 869, Kitas 2, measuring 2-8-6 bighas, situated in Mauja Kehar, Hadbast No. 290, Illaqa Rajgarh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh” During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants could not link the land mentioned in above Exhibits with the suit land. In other words, learned counsel for the appellants could not demonstrate that Exhibits PB, PC and PI pertained to the land, subject matter of the suit filed by them. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said documents have either been mis-read or mis-appreciated by both the learned Courts below. In my considered view, the finding returned by both the learned Courts below to the effect that the plaintiffs were not able to link the suit land with the said Exhibits is correct finding, which is duly borne out from the records of the case. Now, Ex. DD also does not further the case of the plaintiffs to the effect that their predecessor-in-interest was a non-occupancy tenant over the suit land and that he had become owner of the same by operation of law. Besides this, there is concurrent finding returned by both the learned Courts below against the plaintiffs to the effect that they were not in possession of the suit land and in fact the possession of the suit land was with the defendant. Besides this, there is concurrent finding returned by both the learned Courts below against the plaintiffs to the effect that they were not in possession of the suit land and in fact the possession of the suit land was with the defendant. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants could not point out from the records that the findings so returned by the learned Courts below were either perverse or not borne out from the records of the case. Besides this, one more important fact which has to be mentioned at this stage is that a perusal of the plaint demonstrates that an alternative prayer was made by the plaintiffs to the effect that in case the suit land was found to be owned by the defendants, then the plaintiffs be declared to have had become owners of the same by way of adverse possession. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurdwara Sahib versus Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another, (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 669 has held as under: “There cannot be any quarrel to this extent that 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 are filed against the appellant and the appellant is arrayed as defendant that it can use this adverse possession as a shield/defence.” 13. As per law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in above mentioned judgment, a plaintiff even if found to be in adverse possession cannot seek a declaration that such adverse possession of his has matured into ownership. 14. Relying upon the said judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court in Roop Lal and others versus Bhup Singh and others, RSA No. 91 of 2004, decided on 16th March, 2016, has held that plea of adverse possession can only be used as a shield and not as a sword. Similarly, in Roshan Lal versus Briji, RSA No. 42 of 2006, decided on 10.03.2016, this Court again relying on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurdwara Sahib versus Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and Another, (supra) has held that plaintiff cannot claim title in suit land by way of adverse possession. 15. Similarly, in Roshan Lal versus Briji, RSA No. 42 of 2006, decided on 10.03.2016, this Court again relying on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurdwara Sahib versus Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and Another, (supra) has held that plaintiff cannot claim title in suit land by way of adverse possession. 15. In fact, in view of the law so declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the suit so filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable. Be that as it may, even otherwise, in my considered view, the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below do not suffer from any infirmity, as there is no mis-reading or mis-appreciation of Exhibits referred to above by both the learned Courts below. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 16. In view of the findings returned above, as there is no merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed, so also miscellaneous applications, if any. No order as to costs.