JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —Admit on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the judgment of the District Judge is vitiated for reversing the findings of the trial Court without considering independently oral and documentary evidence and denying the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction when the appellant was proved in settled possession of the property?" 2. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is being disposed of at the threshold. 3. The appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the ''plainitff'') filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he had become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession comprised in Khata No. 108, Khatauni No. 364 (old Khatauni No. 345) , Khasra No. 693, measuring 21861-99 square meters situated in Up-Mohal Bhagsu Nath, Mauza and Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) . On the strength of his possession, he further sought the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. 4. The respondent/defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) , contested the suit wherein it was claimed that the possession of the plaintiff was that of encroacher for which the proceedings under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Rules 1954 have been proposed against the plaintiff and it was further denied that the he was in possession of the suit land for the last more than 30 years. 5. On 3.7.2013, the learned Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether plaintiff has become absolute owner of the suit land, as alleged? 2. Whether the possession of the plaintiff has become adverse to the knowledge of true owners, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction? OPP 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD. 5. Whether plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD 7. Whether plaintiff is estopped by way of his act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 8. Whether suit is barred by provision of limitation? OPD 9. Relief. 6. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the learned trial Court declined the decree for declaration as the plaintiff had failed to prove that he had become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. OPD 8. Whether suit is barred by provision of limitation? OPD 9. Relief. 6. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the learned trial Court declined the decree for declaration as the plaintiff had failed to prove that he had become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. However, since the plaintiff was found to be in possession of the suit land, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was passed in his favour and the defendant was restrained from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the Goofa/Cave situated over the suit land. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.5.2015 passed by learned trial Court, the same was assailed by both the parties before the learned appellate Court. The plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 26-D/2016, whereas the State/defendant filed Civil Appeal No. 32-D/2017. Both the appeals were taken up together and were disposed of by common judgment dated 1.1.2018. The appeal filed by the plaintiff has been ordered to be dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the State/defendant has been allowed and the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed as a whole. 8. Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below, the appellant/plaintiff has filed the instant appeal before this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. 9. As regards the plea of adverse possession, it is by now well settled that declaration on the basis of adverse possession cannot be claimed in a suit as this claim can only be agitated by way of defence and can be used only as a shield and not a sword as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gurdwara Sahib versus Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another , (2014) 1 SCC 669 , in the following terms:- "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." 10. 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." 10. However, as regards the relief of injunction, I am of the considered view that the learned first Appellate Court has gone completely astray in declining the same even after coming to the conclusion that it was the plaintiff who was in possession of the suit land. It is more than settled that a person in possession of the land cannot be disturbed except by due process of law and once it was established that the plaintiff was in possession, therefore, injunction in such circumstances ought to have followed. 11. Not only this, it further needs to be clarified that in future litigation, it shall be open to the plaintiff to plead in defence that he has become owner of the property by way of adverse possession as this was precisely what the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed in Gurdwara Sahib''s case in the following terms:- "10. As the appellant is in possession of the suit property since 13-4-1952 and has been granted the decree of injunction, it obviously means that the possession of the appellant cannot be disturbed except by due process of law. We make it clear that though the suit of the appellant seeking relief of declaration has been dismissed, in case the respondents file suit for possession and/or ejectment of the appellant, it would be open to the appellant to plead in defence that the appellant had become the owner of property by adverse possession. Needless to mention at this stage, the appellant shall also be at liberty to plead that findings of Issue 1 to the effect that the appellant is in possession of adverse possession since 13-4-1952 operates as res judicata. Subject to this clarification, the appeal is dismissed." Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is passed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, restraining the respondent/defendant from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the Goofa/Cave situated over the suit land. Subject to this clarification, the appeal is dismissed." Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is passed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, restraining the respondent/defendant from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the Goofa/Cave situated over the suit land. It is further clarified that the plaintiff''s possession over the suit property, shall not be disturbed except by due process of law and it is further clarified that in any future litigation, it shall be open to the plaintiff to plead in defence that he has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. 13. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.