JUDGMENT : Paresh Upadhyay, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) dated 01.01.2019 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2015. By the impugned judgment, the Appellate Court below has reversed the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2015 passed by the Trial Court [the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural)] in Regular Civil Suit No. 463 of 2011. The plaintiffs had filed the said suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the Trial Court. 2. The following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court and learned advocates for the contesting parties were heard at length on those substantial questions of law. (1) Whether the suit was barred by limitation? (2) Whether the suit was barred the provisions of Order XXII Rule 9 and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? (3) Whether the Appellate Court below erred in passing the order beyond the scope of the suit? (4) Whether the defendants No. 1 and 2 (present appellants) can be said to have perfected their title to the suit land by adverse possession, so as to protect their possession? 3. Heard Mr. Tattvam Patel, learned advocate for the appellants (original defendants No. 1 and 2) and Mr. Mehul S. Shah learned senior advocate for the contesting respondents-Original plaintiffs, who were appellants before the District Court. 4. Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the appellate court below fell in error while reversing the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2015 passed by the Trial Court. It is submitted that, the Trial Court had rightly come to the conclusion that no relief could be granted to the plaintiffs. It is submitted that the Appellate Court below, without any valid reason reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. It is further submitted that, not only no relief could be granted to the plaintiffs on merits, the suit was barred under (i) Order XXII Rule 9 and (ii) Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further submitted that the suit was also barred by limitation. It is further submitted that, not only no relief could be granted to the plaintiffs on merits, the suit was barred under (i) Order XXII Rule 9 and (ii) Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further submitted that the suit was also barred by limitation. Attention of this Court is also invited to the earlier round of litigation being Regular Civil Suit No. 647 of 1993 principally between the same parties, for the same cause and in the same Court. Attention of this Court is also invited to the proceedings of Special Civil Application No. 9725 of 2014 before this Court, arising from the said suit. Reference is also made to the proceedings before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 16766 of 2012 and appeals arising there from, which pertained to the same suit land. It is noted that, learned advocate for the appellants has extensively taken this Court through the reasons recorded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court below and the documents on record (in the paper book separately supplied) and has contended that this appeal be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court below be quashed and set aside. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the appellants has relied on the following decisions. (i) Bondar Singh Versus Nihal Singh - (2003) 4 SCC 161 . (ii) Shrimant Shamrao Suyvanshi Vs. Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi - (2002) 3 SCC 676 . (iii) Prem Singh Vs. Birbal - (2006) 5 SCC 353 . (iv) Dilboo Vs. Dhanraji - (2000) 7 SCC 702 . (v) Suraj Rattan Thirani Vs. Azamabad Tea Co. Ltd., - (1964) 6 SCR 192 . (vi) Smt. Karuna Chatruvedi Vs. Smt. Sarojini Agarwal - AIR 1965 SC 295 . (vii) Gujarat Electricity Board, Baroda Vs. Saurashtra Chemicals, Porbandar - AIR 2004 Gujarat 83. (viii) Arun General Industries Ltd. Vs. Rishabh Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., - AIR 1972 Calcutta 128. (ix) Sagar Shamsher Jung Bahadur Rana Vs. The Union of India - AIR 1979 Delhi 118. (x) Jai Hind Iron Mart Vs. Tulsirarr Bhagwandas - AIR 1953 Bombay 117. (xi) Baldev Singh Vs. Manohar Singh - (2006) 6 SCC 498 . 5. On the other hand, Mr. Rishabh Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., - AIR 1972 Calcutta 128. (ix) Sagar Shamsher Jung Bahadur Rana Vs. The Union of India - AIR 1979 Delhi 118. (x) Jai Hind Iron Mart Vs. Tulsirarr Bhagwandas - AIR 1953 Bombay 117. (xi) Baldev Singh Vs. Manohar Singh - (2006) 6 SCC 498 . 5. On the other hand, Mr. Shah, learned senior advocate for the contesting respondents (original plaintiffs) has submitted that, the Appellate Court below has rightly held that the plaintiffs were entitled to reliefs, as prayed. It is submitted that this appeal be dismissed. It is noted that, learned senior advocate for the original plaintiffs has also extensively taken this Court through the reasons recorded by the Appellate Court below and the documents on record (in the paper book separately supplied) and has contended that the Trial Court fell in error while dismissing the suit, which the District Court has rightly corrected and no interference be made by this Court. In support of his submissions, learned senior advocate for the contesting respondents has relied on the following decisions. (i) Ram Nagina Rai Vs. Deo Kumar Rai -recorded on Civil Appeal No. 7266 of 2013. (ii) Santram Janak Dewangan Vs. Shivprasad Garibram Dewangan - 2016 AIR (Chh) 150. Achal Reddi (iii) Achal Reddi Vs. Ramakrishna Reddiar- 1989 Law Suit (SC) 562. (iv) Mohan lal Vs. Mira Abdul Gaffar-1995 Law Suit (SC) 1252. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the contesting parties and having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under. 6.1. From the cause title of the plaint (Regular Civil Suit No. 463 of 2011) it transpires that, the suit was filed in the name of Laxmanji Varvaji Thakor (since deceased), through his only son Viramji Laxmanji Thakor (he also had died) through his four legal heirs. In this suit, declaration is prayed for that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land and injunction was prayed for against defendants No. 1 and 2 qua the suit land. The prayer clause of the suit was further expanded, pursuant to the order of the Trial Court below Exh. 39 that the defendants No. 1 and 2 be declared as trespassers on the suit land. 6.2. The prayer clause of the suit was further expanded, pursuant to the order of the Trial Court below Exh. 39 that the defendants No. 1 and 2 be declared as trespassers on the suit land. 6.2. The said suit was contested by the defendants No. 1 and 2 (present appellants) inter alia contending that, not only the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief on merits, but the plaint was required to be rejected since the suit was barred by more than one provision of law. Specific contention was taken with regard to limitation, Order XXII Rule 9 and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6.3. The Trial Court had, on the basis of the pleadings before it, framed the following issues, and on the basis of evidence led before it, answered them as under. 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the owners and in possession of the suit property i.e. agricultural land situated at Village: Bodakdev, Taluka: Daskroi, District: Ahmedabad, bearing R.S. No. 274/2 admeasuring Hec. Are. Sq. Mtrs. 0-22-26? (In Negative) 2. Whether the defendants prove that they are in possession of the suit land since last about 33 years continuously without any interruption and with the knowledge of plaintiffs? (Partly in Affirmative. Defendants No. 1 and 2 are in possession) 2(A) Whether plaintiffs prove that the defendants no. 1 and 2 are the trespasser in the suit land? (In Negative) 2(B) Whether the defendants prove that the predecessors of plaintiffs had executed an agreement for Sale dated: 18.04.1974 and in part performance thereof possession of the suit land had been handed over to the defendant no. 1? (In affirmative) 3. Whether the plaintiff's suit is within limitation? (In Negative) 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get relief and have right to file this Suit? (In Negative) 5. What order and decree? (Suit finally dismissed)" 6.4. This Court has considered the reasons recorded by the Trial Court qua each issue more particularly para: 18 of the judgment. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the original plaintiffs preferred the appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2015, which the 6th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) allowed vide judgment and decree dated 01.01.2019. This Court has considered the reasons recorded by the Appellate Court below. 8. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the original plaintiffs preferred the appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2015, which the 6th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) allowed vide judgment and decree dated 01.01.2019. This Court has considered the reasons recorded by the Appellate Court below. 8. Having heard learned advocates for the contesting parties, having considered the material on record, and keeping in view the findings of the Courts below vis-a-vis the substantial questions of law as quoted above, this Court finds as under. 9.1. The first two of the substantial questions of law read as under. (1) Whether the suit was barred by limitation? (2) Whether the suit was barred the provisions of Order XXII Rule 9 and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? 9.2. As noted above, from the cause title of the suit in question i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 463 of 2011, it is clear that, the suit was filed in the name of Laxmanji Varvaji Thakor (who had died on 09.02.1990) through his only son - Viramji Laxmanji Thakor, who had also died on 19.09.1998, through four legal heirs of said Viramji Laxmanji Thakor. In this suit, declaration is prayed for that the plaintiffs be declared as the owners of the suit land and injunction was prayed for against defendants No. 1 and 2 qua the suit land. The prayer clause of the suit was further expanded, pursuant to the order of the Trial Court below Exh. 39 that the defendants No. 1 and 2 be declared as trespassers on the suit land. 9.3. In the present suit (Regular Civil Suit No. 463 of 2011), the Trial Court has taken note of the earlier round of litigation between the parties being Regular Civil Suit No. 647 of 1993. A copy of the plaint of the said suit is on record. In the said suit, Laxmanji Varvaji (since deceased) through his legal heirs was the plaintiff No. 1. In the plaint (para: 2 thereof) it was asserted on behalf of the plaintiffs that Laxmanji Varvaji was the owner of the suit land. The said suit was also for declaration and permanent injunction, in substance like the present one. In the said suit also, there were only two defendants, who are the defendants No. 1 and 2 in the present suit-the present appellants. The said suit was also for declaration and permanent injunction, in substance like the present one. In the said suit also, there were only two defendants, who are the defendants No. 1 and 2 in the present suit-the present appellants. The said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court for want of prosecution vide order dated 20.04.2005. It has come on record that the first of the plaintiffs viz. Viramji Laxmanji Thakor had died on 19.08.1998. No legal heir had come on record on his behalf. Thus, the suit stood abated qua him. So far other plaintiffs are concerned, none remained present before the Trial Court and as noted above, the suit stood dismissed for want of prosecution on 20.04.2005. An application for restoration of the said suit was filed by the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 viz. Kanaji Varvaji Thakor and Govindji Kanaji Thakor. Thus, the abatement of the suit attained finality qua the branch of Viramji Laxmanji Thakor. Since the restoration application on behalf of the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 was time barred, an application for condonation of delay was filed. The said application (being Civil Misc. Application No. 53 of 2010) was dismissed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) vide order dated 24.09.2013. The said order was challenged before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 9725 of 2014, which was dismissed on 02.07.2015. The dismissal of the said suit has thus attained finality. On the face of these glaring facts, which in substance are the findings of the facts recorded by the Trial Court, this Court finds substantial force in the submissions of learned advocate for the appellants that the very comparison of the cause title of both the suits and application for condonation of delay in filing restoration of suit (being Civil Misc. Application No. 53 of 2010) before the Trial Court would clinch this issue in favour of the appellants. 9.4. The present suit i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 463 of 2011, as noted above, is filed in the name of the very same person -Laxmanji Varvaji Thakor (who had died on 09.02.1990) through his only son - Viramji Laxmanji Thakor (who was plaintiff No. 1 in the earlier suit and who has also died on 19.09.1998), now through four legal heirs of said Viramji Laxmanji Thakor. In this suit, there is no whisper about the earlier round of litigation i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 647 of 1993. Even if the aspect of suppression of material fact is not gone into by the Court, the present suit was certainly barred by Order XXII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Additionally, the provision of Order II Rule 2 would also operate against the plaintiffs in the present case, so far amendment in the relief clause of the suit is concerned. 9.5. The Trial Court had framed an issue in this regard and had answered it against the plaintiffs. This Court finds that, the Trial Court had rightly held it against the plaintiffs. The Appellate Court below has not recorded any legally sustainable reason to reverse the finding of the Trial Court in that regard. The Appellate Court below thus fell in error by reversing the judgment of the Trial Court in that regard. The substantial question of law No. 2 therefore needs to be answered in affirmative. 9.6. The Trial Court had additionally framed an issue as to whether the declaration and injunction as prayed for by the plaintiffs was otherwise within limitation. On the basis of the evidence led before it, the Trial Court arrived at the conclusion that, independent of the bar of Order XXII Rule 9 and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit was barred by limitation as well. The Trial Court has recorded its findings to the effect that it is the grandfather of the present plaintiffs who had legally handed over the possession of the suit property to the defendants No. 1 and 2 in the year 1974. There is no escape from this finding of fact. Praying for declaration and injunction against the said persons in the year 2011 is rightly held as time barred by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court below has not recorded any legally sustainable reason to reverse the finding of the Trial Court in that regard. The Appellate Court below was thus in error in reversing the judgment of the Trial Court on that count as well. 9.7. In view of above, both the substantial questions of law, being substantial question of law No. 1 and 2 need to be and are answered in affirmative. 10.1. The Appellate Court below was thus in error in reversing the judgment of the Trial Court on that count as well. 9.7. In view of above, both the substantial questions of law, being substantial question of law No. 1 and 2 need to be and are answered in affirmative. 10.1. So far the substantial question of law No. 3 is concerned, it reads as under. (3) Whether the Appellate Court below erred in passing the order beyond the scope of the suit? 10.2. The Appellate Court below has, in the operative part of the impugned judgment inter alia ordered that:- "the defendants No. 1 and 2 are hereby ordered to handover the actual and peaceful possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs within 60 days from today." 10.3. As noted above, the suit was for declaration and permanent injunction. According to the Appellate Court below, even if the plaintiffs were entitled to the declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for by them, giving direction to the defendants to handover the possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs was beyond the relief sought in the suit and thus, the decree passed by the Appellate Court below was beyond the scope of the suit. The substantial question of law No. 3 therefore needs to be and is answered in affirmative. 11.1. So far the last substantial question of law No. 4 is concerned, it reads as under. (4) Whether the defendants No. 1 and 2 (present appellants) can be said to have perfected their title to the suit land by adverse possession, so as to protect their possession? 11.2. It is not in dispute that, the present appellants were put in possession of the suit land by the grandfather of the present plaintiffs in the year 1974. The name of the present appellant is also entered in the revenue record since the year 1978. The Trial Court had specifically framed issues in this regard and those issues are answered against the plaintiffs. There is no legally sustainable material or reason in the judgment of the Appellate Court below to reverse the findings of the Trial Court on those issues. In the present case, the defendants No. 1 and 2 (present appellants) can be said to have perfected their title to the suit land so as to protect their possession. There is no legally sustainable material or reason in the judgment of the Appellate Court below to reverse the findings of the Trial Court on those issues. In the present case, the defendants No. 1 and 2 (present appellants) can be said to have perfected their title to the suit land so as to protect their possession. The substantial question of law No. 4 therefore needs to be and is answered in affirmative. 11.3. At this stage, reference also needs to be made to the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Ravindra Kaur Grewal Vs. Manjit Kaur reported in AIR 2019 SC 3827 . Even if the case of the plaintiffs is accepted, the present appellants are in possession of the suit land for more than thirty years. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court, the present appellants could have even used this factor as a sword standing as plaintiffs. In the present case, they are on much stronger footing. What they could do as plaintiffs, can certainly be done by them as defendants. They could use this as shield. The present appellants therefore can be said to have perfected their title over the suit land. This is the additional reason to answer this substantial question of law in affirmative. 9. In view of the above, this Court arrives at the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation, and the suit was also barred the provisions of Order XXII Rule 9, and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This Court also finds that, the Appellate Court below fell in error while passing the judgment and decree beyond the scope of the suit and further the defendants No. 1 and 2 (present appellants) have perfected their title to the suit land, so as to protect their possession. All the substantial questions of law are thus answered in affirmative. 10. The Authorities cited by learned senior advocate for the contesting respondents-original plaintiffs would not take the case of the plaintiffs any further in the undisputed facts recorded by the Trial Court and the findings recorded by this Court. 11. All the substantial questions of law are thus answered in affirmative. 10. The Authorities cited by learned senior advocate for the contesting respondents-original plaintiffs would not take the case of the plaintiffs any further in the undisputed facts recorded by the Trial Court and the findings recorded by this Court. 11. Before the final order is recorded it is noted that, without prejudice to the right of the aggrieved party to challenge this judgment and order before the higher forum, not only this would bind them qua the dispute in question / qua the suit land, additionally there was also an agreement between them that they would abide by the decision of the Trial Court in this regard. Reference in this regard needs to be made to the orders of this Court recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No. 686 of 2013, more particularly order dated 14.03.2014. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 15.1. This appeal is allowed. 15.2. The judgment and decree passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) dated 01.01.2019 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2015 is quashed and set aside. The said appeal is dismissed. 15.3. The judgment and decree passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) dated 19.10.2015, dismissing the Regular Civil Suit No. 463 of 2011 is confirmed. 15.4. The parties shall abide by the orders passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 686 of 2013. 13. After the pronouncement of this judgment, request is made on behalf of the contesting respondents-original plaintiffs that this judgment be stayed for some time. Considering the totality, this request is rejected.