JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2013, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-(I), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (Camp at Karsog) in Civil Appeal No. 16/2013, vide which learned Appellate Court while allowing the appeal filed by present respondent No. 1, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 19 of 2003 and 22 of 2012, titled as Dila Ram vs. Jalam Ram and Others, which suit stood decreed by the learned trial Court in favour of the plaintiff/ present appellant, vide judgment and decree dated 27.12.2012. 2. Facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are as under:- Appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as "plaintiff") filed a suit for declaration and correction of revenue entries against the defendant and proforma defendants, inter alia on the ground that the suit land measuring 25-19-16 bighas was recorded in the ownership of Param Dev, defendant No. 1 and proforma defendants No. 2 to 4. As per the plaintiff, earlier land was purchased by one Nard Ram, who remained in possession of the same since the year 1960. Mutation of the land was attested in the name of Nard Ram as also his four brothers namely Karam Dass, Mast Ram, Jalam Ram and Megh Singh, in equal share. Nard Ram, Karam Dass, Mast Ram and Megh Singh changed the ownership in the name of Param Dev, Daulat Ram, Narain Dass and Hari Singh. However, Jalam Ram changed the ownership of his share in the name of one Dile Ram. 3. According to the plaintiff, he was in possession over the suit land since the time of settlement i.e. since the year 1968 and he had perfected his title over the suit land against Jalam Ram, by way of adverse possession and revenue entries reflecting defendant No. 1 as owner of the suit land, were liable to be changed. As per the plaintiff, cause of action arose on 1.1.2003, when defendant did not agree for change of ownership of the suit land despite plaintiff asking him repeatedly to do so. 4. As per the plaintiff, cause of action arose on 1.1.2003, when defendant did not agree for change of ownership of the suit land despite plaintiff asking him repeatedly to do so. 4. The suit was contested by the defendants, inter alia on the ground that the suit land was purchased by five brothers and accept defendant No. 1, other co-sharers relinquished their respective shares in favour of Param Dev, Daulta Ram, Narain Dass and Hari Singh. Defendant No. 1 denied that possession over the suit land was with the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 stated that he was residing within Sub-Tehsil Nihri, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. and that plaintiff had no cause of action to maintain the suit nor any right to sue the defendant had accrued in his favour. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the plaintiff has perfected his title by way of adverse possession? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and nonjoinder of necessary party? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Relief." 6. On the basis of evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, learned Trial Court returned the following findings on the issues so framed:- "Issue No. 1 - Yes. Issue No. 2 - Not pressed. Issue No. 3 - Not pressed. Issue No. 4 - Not pressed. Relief: Suit of the plaintiff is decreed as per operative part of the judgment." 7. The suit was thus decreed by the learned trial Court inter alia, by holding that the evidence demonstrated that the plaintiff was in cultivating possession of the suit land and that he had perfected his title by way of adverse possession. Learned trial Court relying upon the statements of plaintiff's witnesses as also the statement of defendant Jalam Ram held that Jalam Ram himself had admitted that Dile Ram was coming in possession and cultivating the suit land and that there was no partition between the parties. It held that Jalam Ram had admitted that Dile Ram was paying land revenue of his share of land at village Soja. It held that Jalam Ram had admitted that Dile Ram was paying land revenue of his share of land at village Soja. On these basis, learned trial Court held that defendants could not substantiate that possession of the plaintiff was not adequate in continuity and in publicity adverse to him and held that plaintiff had become owner of the suit land by way of law and had perfected his title by way of adverse possession. 8. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal. 9. Learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.2013, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Learned Appellate Court held that learned trial Court had erred in deciding the suit on the basis of oral evidence, whereas documentary evidence clearly demonstrated that defendant No. 1 stood recorded as a co-sharer and in the revenue record, Jalam Ram was duly recorded as joint owner in possession over the suit land and said entries were not rebutted by the plaintiff by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Learned appellate Court further held that plaintiff had not placed on record any agreement to the effect that defendant Jalam Ram had ever undertaken to transfer his share in his name as he was seven to eight years old when the land was purchased by his father in the name of five brothers. Learned appellate Court also held that presumption of truth was attached to the revenue entries and co-sharers could not be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession, more so when the plea of adverse possession was being claimed by the plaintiff. On these basis, learned Appellate Court dismissed the suit and allowed the appeal. 10. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff/appellant has filed the present appeal, which was admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law:- "1. Whether on account of mis-appreciation of the pleadings and misreading of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court are erroneous and as such, the judgment and decree impugned in this appeal being perverse and vitiated is not legally sustainable? 11. I have learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below as well as record of the case. 12. 11. I have learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below as well as record of the case. 12. It is not in dispute that the genesis of the claim put forth by the plaintiff before the learned trial Court was the plea of adverse possession. His claim was that defendant No. 1 never remained in possession of the suit property and as the same remained under the cultivating possession of the appellant/plaintiff, therefore, he had perfected his title by way of adverse possession. 13. Learned Appellate Court after correct appreciation of the evidence on record set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, vide which the learned trial Court held that plaintiff had perfected his title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. While setting aside the said judgment and decree, learned Appellate Court not only has correctly held that the evidence on record, demonstrated that as per the revenue record, suit land was recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 as owner in possession as a co-sharer, but it further rightly held that plaintiff could not otherwise have filed a suit on the plea of adverse possession. 14. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant could not demonstrate that the findings returned by the learned Appellate Court that documentary evidence on record, demonstrated that it was defendant No. 1 who was recorded as owner in possession of the suit land as a co-sharer, were perverse findings not borne out from the record. 15. Not only this, as the suit of the plaintiff was based on the plea of adverse possession, the same otherwise could not have been decreed in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in titled as Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and Another, (2014) 1 SCC 669 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to held as under:- "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. 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." Substantial question of law No. 1 is answered accordingly. 16. In view of the discussion hereinabove, as there is no merit in the present appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed, so also, pending miscellaneous applications, if any. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.