JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. G. P. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. Also hard Mr. S. N. Sarma, learned senior counsel representing the respondent (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.). 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of reversal dated 11.05.2007 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Tinsukia in Title Appeal No.15/2006 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent and reversing the decree of the trial Court dated 30.10.2006 passed in connection with Title Suit No.10/1998. Consequently, the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff stood dismissed. 3. This Second Appeal was admitted to be heard on the following substantial questions of law :- “Whether the plaintiff/appellant has acquired title by adverse possession over the suit land? Whether findings of the learned trial court in issue No.5 regarding adverse possession are vitiated by perversity of fining of facts?” 4. The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff, who claims to be in occupation of a plot of land measuring 2 bighas described in the schedule to the plaint for more than 20 years, had filed Title Suit No.10/1995 in the Court of Munsiff No.1 at Tinsukia, inter alia, praying for a decree declaring his right, title and interest over the suit land on the basis of adverse possession; for a decree of permanent injunction and for other consequential reliefs. The plaintiff’s suit was contested by the respondent by filing written statement wherein the case of the plaintiff was denied. Based on the pleadings of the parties the learned trial court had framed the following issues :- “(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in law and in facts and its present form? (ii) Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether the plaintiff has right to sue? (iv) Whether the suit is properly valued and the Court fee paid is undervalued and paid the proper Court fee in view of the relief claimed? (v) Whether the plaintiff has been possessing the suit land adversely to the interest of the defendant and whether the suit land is a part of the total land measuring 65000 sq. ft. of the suit patta? (vi) Whether the plaintiff has got his right, title, interest and possession over the suit land? (vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to have a decree as prayed for? (viii) To what relief the parties are entitled to?” 5. ft. of the suit patta? (vi) Whether the plaintiff has got his right, title, interest and possession over the suit land? (vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to have a decree as prayed for? (viii) To what relief the parties are entitled to?” 5. Both sides had led evidence in support of their respective case. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the evidence on record the learned trial court had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff declaring his right, title and interest over the suit land holding that the plaintiff had acquired title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. On an appeal preferred by the respondent, the learned First Appellate Court had reversed the decree of the trial court by holding that the plaintiff had nowhere pleaded in the plaint that the defendant IOCL was the actual owner of the suit land. That apart, it was also held that the plaintiff had failed to establish a case of adverse possession based on materials available on record. However, while dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff, the learned First Appellate Court observed that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land shall continue until such time he is evicted by following the due process of law. 6. At the very outset, Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel, fairly submits that the title of the plaintiff could not be declared merely on the basis of adverse possession, more so when it is not the case of the plaintiff that the suit land belongs to the respondent. However, referring to the limited protection granted by the lower Appellate Court regarding continuance of possession of his client over the suit land, Mr. Bhowmik prays for confirmation of the said order of protection even if the appeal is dismissed. 7. Mr. S. N. Sarma, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat village Sirthala and another reported in (2014) 1 SCC 669 to submit that law is by now firmly settled that a suit for declaration of title based on adverse possession would not be maintainable inasmuch as the plea of adverse possession can be taken as a defence and not as a ground for declaration of title in a suit. 8. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gurdwara Sahib (supra), I am of the view that the appellant/plaintiff’s suit could not have been decreed declaring his right, title and interest over the suit land merely on the plea of adverse possession. As such, the substantial questions of law framed by this Court do not arise for decision in this appeal. Accordingly, it is held that there is no merit in the Second Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the protection granted by the learned First Appellate Court in favour of the plaintiff/appellant shall continue until such time he is evicted from the land by following the due process of law. No order as to cost. Send back the LCR.