JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the appellants/plaintiffs have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, FTC, Kullu, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2007, dated 28.02.2009, 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 Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Manali, in Civil Suit No. 82 of 2006, dated 22.11.2007, whereby learned trial Court had dismissed the suit filed by the present appellants/plaintiffs for declaration that they had become owners in possession of the suit property by way of adverse possession and further that sale deed No. 131, dated 01.04.2006 was null and void. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this case are that the appellants/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiffs’) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they had become owners of the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 67/87 min, Khasra No. 1181, old Khasra No. 2170 min, measuring 0-01-50 Hects., situated in Up Mohal Simsa, Phati Nasogi, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’) and sale deed executed by defendants No. 2 and 3 in favour of defendant No. 1 registered at Sr. No. 131, dated 01.04.2006 was null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and in the alternative decree of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the suit land was prayed for. As per plaintiffs, they were owners in possession of land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 163/219, Khasra No. 1175, measuring 0-06-94 hectares, Khata Khatauni No. 165/121, Khasra Nos. 1167, 1168, 1171, 1175, 1174, 1173, 1176, 1177, 1175, 1174 and 1179, which was purchased by them vide sale deeds executed on 26.04.1983 and 27.11.1987. It was further their case that they had constructed a hotel known as Hotel Preet thereupon. As per plaintiffs, defendants No. 2 and 3 were owners of land bearing Khata Khatauni No. 67/87 min., Khasra No. 1181, Sabka Khasra No. 2170 min., measuring 0- 01-50 hectares, however, the same was not in possession of defendants No. 2 and 3 as plaintiffs had constructed a septic tank and also installed a pollution treatment plant upon the said khasra number. These constructions were carried out at the time of the construction of the Hotel Preet constructed by them after plan of the hotel was approved by Assistant Town Planner, Kullu. As per the plaintiffs, they were coming in peaceful possession of the same continuously without any interruption from any quarter to the knowledge of the defendants as well as owners of adjoining land and thus they had perfected their title by way of adverse possession and defendants had no right to interfere over the same or to demolish construction so carried out by the plaintiffs over the same. As per the plaintiffs, defendants No. 2 and 3 had executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 on 01.04.2006 qua the suit land alongwith one other khasra number and on the strength of said sale deed, defendant No. 1 was trying to interfere with the suit land. As per plaintiffs, sale deed so executed dated 01.04.2006 by defendants No. 2 and 3 in favour of defendant No. 1 was null and void and had no binding effect on the plaintiffs as defendants No. 2 and 3 were in the knowledge of the fact that suit land which they had sold to defendant No. 1 was not in their possession but was in possession of plaintiffs over which plaintiffs had constructed a septic tank and pollution treatment plant. As per plaintiffs, their possession over the suit land was hostile, peaceful, continuous, since the year 1987. It was in this background that the suit was filed by the plaintiff with the prayers already mentioned above. 3. Suit so filed by the plaintiffs was contested by defendant No. 1, who by way of his written statement denied the claim of the plaintiffs. It was mentioned in the written statement that plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit land as alleged and plea raised in this regard by plaintiffs was faulty and afterthought with intention to grab the land which stood so purchased by defendant No. 1 from defendants No. 2 and 3 through a registered and valid sale deed after obtaining the permission to purchase the same from the Government of Himachal Pradesh. It was further mentioned in the written statement that peaceful possession of the suit land was handed over by defendants No. 2 and 3 to defendant No. 1 at the time of execution of registered sale deed and since then suit land was in possession of defendant No. 1, which stood developed and levelled by him by spending money upon the same. It was further mentioned in the written statement that defendant No. 1 had constructed a septic bank over the same. It was denied in the written statement that the plaintiffs had become owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession as alleged or any septic tank or pollution treatment plant stood constructed by plaintiffs over the suit property. It was further mentioned in the written statement that on the intervening night of 13/14.10.2006, plaintiff No. 1 had demolished the boundary wall which was so constructed by defendant No. 1 with intention to take possession of same in illegal manner and in this regard, FIR No. 245, dated 15.10.2006, under Sections 447, 427 and 379 of IPC was registered against him. It is also mentioned in the written statement that demarcation of land in question was conducted in the presence of Patwari Halka, field Kanungo, Up Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Nasogi, Ward Panch Lalu Ram, additional SHO Roop Singh and defendant No. 1 as part of investigation by the police and plaintiffs chose not to remain present at the site at the time of demarcation despite information sent to them in this regard by the police. It was also mentioned that after the demarcation was conducted by revenue officials on 01.11.2006, plaintiff No. 1 pelted bricks on Smt. Jai Shree Sharma (wife of defendant No. 1) and had used abusive, obscene and filthy language and had threatened her as well as defendant No. 1. It was further mentioned in the written statement that plaintiff were bent upon unnecessarily to drag him in the litigation with the intention of grabbing the suit land simply because he was an outsider belonging to State of Rajasthan. On these bases, the claim as put forth by the plaintiffs in their plaint was denied by defendant No. 1. 4. By way of replication, the plaintiffs while denying the averments made in the written statement reiterated the stand as was taken by them in the plaint. 5. On these bases, the claim as put forth by the plaintiffs in their plaint was denied by defendant No. 1. 4. By way of replication, the plaintiffs while denying the averments made in the written statement reiterated the stand as was taken by them in the plaint. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- “1.Whether the plaintiffs have become owners of the suit land as alleged ? OPP. 2. Whether the sale deed dated 01.04.2006 executed by defendants No. 2 and 3 in favour of defendant No. 2 is null and void as alleged ? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of injunction as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether the suit of plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD-1. 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit as alleged? OPD-1 6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing suit by their acts and conduct as alleged? OPD-1 7. Whether the plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts from this court as alleged? OPD-1. 8. Relief.” 1(a). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of adverse possession qua the suit land against the defendants as alleged? 7(a). Whether the plaintiffs has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD-1. 6. On the basis of evidence adduced by the respective parties both oral as well as documentary, learned trial Court decided the issues so framed as under:- “Issue No.1 : No.. Issue No. 2 : No. Issue No. 3 : No. Issue No.4 : Yes Issue No.5 : Yes. Issue No.6 : Yes Issue No. 7 : Yes Issue No. 1(a) : No. Issue No. 7(a) : No.. Relief : The suit is dismissed as per the operative part of judgment.” 7. While dismissing the suit it was held by learned trial Court that it was an admitted fact that defendants No. 2 and 3 were owners in possession of the suit land and the factum of plaintiffs having constructed a septic tank and installed pollution treatment plant on the suit land after purchasing contiguous land vide sale deeds dated 26.04.1983 and 27.11.1987 stood denied by the contesting defendants. Learned trial Court held that plea of defendant No. 1 was that the suit land was purchased by him from defendants No. 2 and 3 by way of a registered and valid sale deed dated 01.04.2006 for consideration after obtaining permission to purchase the said land from the Government and after the purchase of the same, he was in possession of the suit land alongwith other land which was delivered to him comprising in Khasra No. 1204, total 0-03-00 hectares by defendants No. 2 and 3 at the time of execution of the sale deed. Learned trial Court held that as per defendant No. 1, after taking possession of the suit land, he developed the same and constructed a septic tank thereupon after seeking demarcation of the suit land. It was also held by the learned trial Court that the factum of sale deed having been executed between defendant No. 1 and defendants No. 2 and 3 was not disputed even by the plaintiffs but their contention was that said sale deed was null and void and was not binding upon them as they have perfected their title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. Learned trial Court further held that a person who claims adverse possession has to demonstrate and prove the following: “a) On what date he come into possession. (b) What was the nature of his possession. (c) Whether the factum of his possession was known to the other party. (d) How long his possession had continued and, (e) Whether his possession was open and undisturbed.” It is further held that perusal of pleadings of plaintiffs as well as evidence led by them demonstrated that ingredients of adverse possession were not established by them on record. Learned trial Court held that plaintiffs could not be said to have had been proved their possession over the suit land as claimed by them by perfecting their title by way of adverse possession. It was held by the learned trial Court that defendant No. 1 had successfully proved on record that he had obtained necessary permission from the Government to purchase suit land from defendants No. 2 and 3 and thereafter sale deed was executed in his favour by defendants No. 2 and 3. It was held by the learned trial Court that defendant No. 1 had successfully proved on record that he had obtained necessary permission from the Government to purchase suit land from defendants No. 2 and 3 and thereafter sale deed was executed in his favour by defendants No. 2 and 3. It was also held by the learned trial Court that as plaintiffs had failed to prove their possession over the suit land, therefore, there was no question of defendants causing any interference over the same. On these bases, it was further held by the learned trial Court that plaintiffs were not entitled for relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. Learned trial Court thus dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 8. In appeal, learned Appellate Court while upholding the judgment and decree so passed by learned trial Court held that specific stand that had been taken by the plaintiffs in para 4 of the plaint was to the effect that they were in peaceful possession of the suit land to the knowledge of the defendants, in hostile manner since 1987. By referring to the statement of PW1 Ashok Kumar it was held by learned Appellate Court that whereas pleadings of the plaintiffs were to the effect that they were in adverse possession of the suit land since 1987, however, deposition of PW1 Ashok Kumar in the Court was contrary to the pleadings wherein he stated that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land since 1983 and he was instructed by previous owners Rewati and Indra to take possession of the suit land in the year 1983. Learned Appellate Court held that there was a clear variance in the pleadings and evidence led by the plaintiffs to prove their case. Learned Appellate Court further held that PW2 Chaman Thakur placed on record site plan of the suit land, in which septic tank and pollution treatment plant were shown, however, his cross examination indicated that he was not aware as to who was the owner of the suit land on which septic tank stood constructed. Learned Appellate Court further held that PW3 Nawang Dorje stated that Ashok Kumar had constructed the septic tank over the suit land with the aid of mason Sohan Lal in the year 1984-85, however, in his cross examination, he stated that he was not aware about ownership of the land on which septic tank was constructed. Learned Appellate Court further held that PW3 Nawang Dorje stated that Ashok Kumar had constructed the septic tank over the suit land with the aid of mason Sohan Lal in the year 1984-85, however, in his cross examination, he stated that he was not aware about ownership of the land on which septic tank was constructed. It was further held by learned Appellate Court that Sohan Lal (mason) had deposed in the Court that he had constructed septic tank of the plaintiffs over the land which was purchased by the plaintiffs. Learned Appellate Court while referring to the statement of PW5 Sansar Chand, Junior Engineer, Town and Planning Officer, Kullu, held that map of the Hotel which was placed on record as Ext. PW5/A by the said witness and further his statement do not reflect that septic tank and treatment plant stood constructed over the suit land by the plaintiffs in the year 1997. It was further held by learned Appellate Court that the report of the Local Commissioner Ext. PW7/A was also of no assistance to the plaintiffs as though this report demonstrated construction of septic tank on the spot with broken chambers, however, the report did not demonstrate that the septic tank was constructed over the suit land i.e. Khasra No. 1181. On the basis of the statement of PW9 Lalu Ram it was held by learned Appellate Court that his testimony demonstrated that demarcation of the suit land was conducted on the spot by Kanongo and Patwari but plaintiffs had withheld the said evidence from the Court and that it appeared that statement of PW9 was just his figment of imagination. On these bases, learned Appellate Court while upholding the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs/appellants have filed this appeal. 10. The present appeal was admitted by this Court on 30.04.2009 on the following substantial questions of law. “1. Whether the findings of the Courts below are a result of complete misreading of pleadings, evidence and the law as applicable to the facts of the case and particularly documents Ex. PW2/B, PW5/A, PW7/A and Ex. PW6/A to PW6/F and as such palpably erroneous and illegal and if so to what effect? 2. “1. Whether the findings of the Courts below are a result of complete misreading of pleadings, evidence and the law as applicable to the facts of the case and particularly documents Ex. PW2/B, PW5/A, PW7/A and Ex. PW6/A to PW6/F and as such palpably erroneous and illegal and if so to what effect? 2. What is the effect on the judgments and decrees in case both the Courts relied upon inadmissible evidence contrary to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?.” 11. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below. 12. In the plaint so filed by the plaintiffs, the following reliefs were prayed for. (a) Decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs have become owner and in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession. (b) Decree for declaration to the effect that the sale deed bearing No. 131 dated 1.04.2006 be declared null and void to the extent of Khasra No. 1181 i.e. the suit land. (c) And in the alternative a decree for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the suit land without any right title or interest. (d) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may also be granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants and the suit of the plaintiffs may be decreed with cost in the interest of justice.” Plaintiffs thus sought a decree for declaration to the effect that they had become owners in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurdwara Sahib versus Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and Another, (2014) 1 SCC 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 used this adverse possession as a shield/defence.” 14. 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 used this adverse possession as a shield/defence.” 14. As per law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in abovementioned 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. 15. 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. 16. In the present case, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was for declaration that they had become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Both the learned Courts below have concurrently held against the plaintiffs that they failed to prove that their title over the suit land had matured into ownership by way of adverse possession. In fact, I have in detail elaborated the findings returned by the learned Courts below in this regard, though there was no necessity to do so in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurdwara Sahib versus Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and Another (supra). Law as it exists today, does not entitles the plaintiff to seek declaration to the effect that he has become owner in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Plea of adverse possession is available to a party only if the said party is arrayed as defendant and plea of adverse possession can be used as a shield/defence. In the present case, the findings returned by both the learned Courts below are to the effect that plaintiffs had failed to prove that they had perfected their title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. In the present case, the findings returned by both the learned Courts below are to the effect that plaintiffs had failed to prove that they had perfected their title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. In fact both the learned Courts below have concurrently held against the plaintiffs that they are not in possession of the suit land. Findings recorded to this effect by both the learned Court below are duly borne out from the records of the case, as is evident from the reasonings given by both the learned Courts below, which I have dealt in detail in above part of the judgment and with which I concur. Substantial questions of law primarily aim to the fact that findings arrived at by both the learned Courts below are to the effect that the plaintiffs had not perfected their title over the suit land by way of adverse possession are erroneous findings, which is not so. However, as I have already held above, findings returned by both the learned Courts below that plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession over the suit land are duly borne out from the records of the case and in the absence of the plaintiffs being not in possession of the suit land, even otherwise there was no question of their having perfected their title over the same by way of adverse possession. Dehors this, keeping in view the fact that prayer as made by plaintiffs in Civil Suit can otherwise also not be granted to them in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurdwara Sahib versus Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and Another, supra, therefore also, there is no merit in the present appeal. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 17. Accordingly, this Court while upholding the judgment and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below dismisses this appeal being devoid of merit. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.