ORDER : The appellant is the original plaintiff and he has lost the case before both the courts below. 2. The suit being Title Suit No.73 of 2006 has been instituted by the plaintiff for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land, description of which is as follows: Land measuring 2 (two) kathas along with the house and other structures thereon equivalent to 1440 sq. ft. recorded under old Khata No. 1, old plot No. 17, corresponding to present survey Khata No. 908, portion of present survey plot No. 4621, a.b. Thana No. 1642, Mouza Mango, P.S.- Mango, Ward No -9, J/MNAC, Town-Jamshedpur Dist-East Singhbhum. 3. The basis of claim, as pleaded, is that the record of right published in the year 1956, the suit land has been mentioned as Anabad Bihar Sarkar, but illegal possession of Kamla Devi (her vendor) has been recorded. The present appellant has purchased the suit land through registered sale deed no.1639 dated 25.03.1994 from Kamla Devi along with construction already made in the suit land and since then she is residing in the said plot and she has made some further construction also. 4. Thus, the plaintiff has claimed title, confirmation of the possession and injunction against the defendant on the basis of adverse possession. 5. The trial court has rejected the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove continuous possession of the suit land and further it has not been disclosed as to how vendor of the plaintiff came in possession of the suit land and accordingly, suit has been dismissed. 6. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed appeal being Title Appeal No.35 of 2014. The appellate court has also dismissed the appeal, affirming the decree on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove continue possession of the suit land. 7. Be that as it may, law is settled that declaration of ownership of land on the basis of adverse possession, cannot be sought by the plaintiff. 8.The Apex Court, in the case of Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another, reported in (2014)1 SCC 669 in paras-4 and 8, has held as under: “4. 7. Be that as it may, law is settled that declaration of ownership of land on the basis of adverse possession, cannot be sought by the plaintiff. 8.The Apex Court, in the case of Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another, reported in (2014)1 SCC 669 in paras-4 and 8, has held as under: “4. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, it was decided in favour of the plaintiff returning the findings that the appellant was in adverse possession of the suit property since 13-4-1952 as this fact had been proved by a plethora of documentary evidence produced by the appellant. However, while deciding the second issue, the court opined that no declaration can be sought on the basis of adverse possession inasmuch as adverse possession can be used as a shield and not as a sword. The learned Civil Judge relied upon the judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurudwara Sahib Sannauli v. State of Punjab 2 (2009) 154 PLR 765 and thus, decided the issue against the plaintiff. Issue 3 was also, in the same vein, decided against the appellant. 8. 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”. (Emphasis Supplied) 9. The Apex Court, further in the case of Ram Nagina Rai & Anr. Vs. Deo Kumar Rai (deceased) by LRS. and another in Civil Appeal No.7266 of 2013 in paras-11 and 12, has held as under: “11. Thus, it is important to assess whether such intention to dispossess is apparent to the actual owner or not. The intention of the adverse user must be communicated atleast impliedly to the actual owner of the property. His hostile attitude should be open to the knowledge of the real owner. It follows that the intention and possession of the adverse possessor must be hostile enough to give rise to a reasonable notice to the actual owner. 12. The intention of the adverse user must be communicated atleast impliedly to the actual owner of the property. His hostile attitude should be open to the knowledge of the real owner. It follows that the intention and possession of the adverse possessor must be hostile enough to give rise to a reasonable notice to the actual owner. 12. Applying the test of nec vi, nec clam, nec precario i.e., ‘without force, without secrecy, without permission' as an established test for finding adverse possession, we find that the defendants have not proved their possession to be adverse to that of the real owner inasmuch as they entered into possession as licensees to begin with and there is nothing on record to show as to when the permissive possession became adverse to the interest of the real owner. ‘Animus possidendi’ is one of the ingredients of adverse possession, and unless the person possessing the property has the requisite hostile animus, the period of prescription does not commence. Virtually, the defendants are required to prove the possession to be adequate in continuity, adequate in publicity and to adequately show that their possession is adverse to that of the true owner. It must start with wrongful dispossession of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. The physical fact of exclusion, possession and animus possidendi to hold as owner, in exclusion to the actual owner, are the most important factors to prove adverse possession. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to take away the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all the facts necessary to establish his adverse possession”. 10. From the above judgments of the Apex Court, it appears that the plea of adverse possession can be taken only by way of defence, but cannot be a ground for institution of the suit in the form of plaintiff. 11. Further, plaintiff has failed to prove adverse possession over the suit land. Both court have given concurrent finding regarding possession over the suit land is not continuous. 12. Further, plaintiff has claimed to enter in the suit land, on the basis of sale deed and as such, plea of adverse possession is not available to her. 13. 11. Further, plaintiff has failed to prove adverse possession over the suit land. Both court have given concurrent finding regarding possession over the suit land is not continuous. 12. Further, plaintiff has claimed to enter in the suit land, on the basis of sale deed and as such, plea of adverse possession is not available to her. 13. Once, title has been claimed by the plaintiff, then, plea of adverse possession is not available. Adverse to real owner means, ownership has to be accepted in somebody else then plaintiff herself. 14. In view of the facts of the present case, it is clear that the present suit is not maintainable as claim of title has been made on the basis of adverse possession. The plaintiff is well within her right to defend her possession over the suit land, if any proceeding is brought to vacate her from the suit premises. 15. Accordingly, present second appeal is dismissed.