JUDGMENT : In this second appeal, challenge is made to the Judgment and Decree, dated 22.12.2014, passed in A.S.No.6 of 2014, on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil, confirming the Judgment, Decree, dated 31.10.2013, passed in O.S.No.705 of 2008, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil. 2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law : “1. When the Trial Court in Paragraph No.11 of its judgment has held that title to the suit property of defendant is admitted by the Plaintiff/Appellant herein and that defendants admits possession of the plaintiff, and that the defendant has not plaintiff established to her case of 'adverse possession' by 1996 by entering the suit property in 1983 when it was vacant with a demolished building, rebuilding it and living in it and carrying on hotel business? 2. When defendant was away in Bhopal in North India from 1981 and returned to Nagercoil in 2001 as in the evidence of P.W1 and when the plaintiff entered the vacant suit property with demolished-building in 1983 and rebuilt in living in it, carrying on business has not plaintiff perfected her title by the adverse possession by 1996 for 12 years, in terms of S.27 of T.P.Act and Article 65 of the Limitation Act 1963? 3. Has not the plaintiff proved her case of 'Adverse possession' by being in open, exclusive, continuous and Hostile/adverse possession as against its true owner the defendant in terms of the Judgments in 2010 (5) MLJ 491 , 2012 (3) MWN (Civil) 513 (DB), 2013 (2) TLNJ 253 (Civil), 2013 (5) MLJ 620 , 2014 (2) SCC 788 and other decisions on the point, notwithstanding that land tax-demands and water and drainage demand were raised as per Exs.A9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17 in the name of the defendant and Appellant paid them as per Exs.B3, 4, 7, 8, 9 in the name of the defendant? 4. Should not the court's below have drawn an adverse inference against the defendant for her abstaination from giving evidence in the case in terms of S.115 illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, as held in 2013 (a) SCC 64 – para-23, with a view to avoid information being elicited you're her to support the case of the plaintiff of adverse possession? 5. 5. Can the evidence of D.W.1 Johnson, a paternal cousin of the defendant who became her power of attorney under Ex.B1 dated 21.01.2009 prove the case of the defendant especially when he admits that he was away in North India in 1983 and that when he came to Nagercoil in December, 1983 for Christmas Holidays, he saw plaintiff living in suit property? 6. When defendant who must be aware of the facts has not filed the written statement and when her Power Agent DW.1 who was not aware of the facts has filed the Written Statement, would it not amount to there being no defence to the plaintiff's case at all, amounting to plaintiff's case alone having been proved?” 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the Trial Court. 4. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 5. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the suit property belonged to the defendant and the plaintiff occupied the suit property on 15.06.1983 and put up a building with sand and sun burnt bricks and using the tiled portion as the residential building and the asbestos roof portion as the lunch home and carrying on the business under the name and style of Kannan Hotel and accordingly, the plaintiff has been in open, visible, exclusive, hostile, notorious, uninterrupted, continuous, exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same to the knowledge of the defendant and others over the statutory period of 12 years and thereby, prescribed the title to the suit property by way of adverse possession as on 15.06.1995 and the right of the defendant to the suit property has been lost by the adverse possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and hence, the defendant is not entitled to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property and on the other hand, the defendant, with the help of the Police, is attempting to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property and thereby, evict her from the suit property by using unlawful means and left with no other alternative, according to the plaintiff, she has been necessitated to lay the suit for the appropriate reliefs. 6. 6. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and disputed that the plaintiff had been in the occupation of the suit property from 15.06.1983 on her own and put up a building with sand and sun burnt bricks and occupying one portion of the building for residential purpose and the other portion for running the hotel business on her own. The building was originally leased to the plaintiff by the defendant along with table, benches and all utensils for the monthly rent of Rs.150/- and subsequently, the rent has been increased from time to time and in the year 1996, when the defendant wanted to put up a new building in the suit property, issued notice to the plaintiff and the other lessees and except the plaintiff and the Labours Union of Transport Corporation, the other lessees had vacated the building and the Labours Union of Transport Corporation is paying rent to the defendant. However, the plaintiff has schemed to knock off the suit property from the defendant falsely and thereby, laid a false claim to the suit property on the plea of adverse possession. It is false to state that the plaintiff has been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property openly, continuously and uninterruptedly by exerting animus attitude to the knowledge of the defendant and others beyond the statutory period and thereby, prescribed the title to the suit property by way of adverse possession. The plaintiff had never possessed the suit property as hostile owner and it is only the defendant, who is paying tax to the Revenue Department and also paying the building tax to the Municipality and taking advantage of the oral lease arrangement, the plaintiff has come forward with the false case and it is false to state that the defendant is attempting to evict the plaintiff from the suit property by unlawful means. The plaintiff is not entitled to obtain the reliefs prayed for and accordingly, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 7. Based on the abovesaid pleadings, the parties went for trial and it is found that on the side of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A1 to A17 were marked and on the side of the defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B14 were marked. 8. 7. Based on the abovesaid pleadings, the parties went for trial and it is found that on the side of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A1 to A17 were marked and on the side of the defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B14 were marked. 8. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the Courts below were pleased to dismiss the plaintiff's suit. Aggrieved over the same, the present second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff. 9. The plaintiff has admitted that the suit property belonged to the defendant, however would plead that inasmuch as she has been in the occupation of the suit property from 15.06.1983 onwards and built-up a building therein and running a hotel and also residing therein, according to the plaintiff, on account of her open, exclusive and hostile possession of the suit property beyond the statutory period to the knowledge of the defendant and others, it is her case that she had prescribed title to the suit property by way of adverse possession and on that basis alone, it is found that the plaintiff has come forward with the suit seeking the relief of declaration and the other consequential reliefs. 10. The defendant has disputed the abovesaid claim of title to the suit property by the plaintiff and contended that the suit property had been leased out to the plaintiff for running the hotel business on rental basis and thereafter, the defendant demanded the possession of the suit property from the plaintiff and the other tenants, who are in the occupation of the other property belonging to the defendant and stated that except the plaintiff and another, the other lessees had vacated their respective portions and the other tenant is continuing to pay the rent to the defendant and it is only the plaintiff, who is squatting on the suit property without any basis, had wrongly claimed title to the suit property and disputed the claim of the plaintiff's title to the suit property by way of adverse possession and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit. 11. 11. In the light of the above position that the plaintiff has claimed the relief of declaration of title to the suit property only based on the plea of adverse possession, it is found that on that score alone, the plaintiff's suit is legally unsustainable in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 669 . In the said decision, the Apex Court has held that the declaration of ownership of land, on the basis of the adverse possession, cannot be sought by the plaintiff, but, the claim of ownership by adverse possession can be made by way of defence when arrayed as defendant in the proceedings against him and on that determination, upheld the declinement of the decree to the plaintiff by way of adverse possession in the said case by the Trial Court and thus, it is found that when the plaintiff has come forward with the present suit claiming the relief of declaration to the suit property only on the basis of adverse possession and when on that basis, the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain the suit for the relief of declaration as outlined by the Apex Court in the abovecited decision, it is seen that on the abovesaid factor alone, the plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed. 12. Furthermore, the abovecited decision of the Apex Court has been subsequently, followed by the Apex Court in the decision in Dharampal (Dead) through L.Rs. vs. Punjab Wakf Board and others, reported in (2018) 11 SCC 449 and in the abovesaid decision also, the Apex Court has held that the declaration of ownership to the suit property sought by the plaintiff on the basis of the plea of adverse possession is not permissible and for coming to the said conclusion, the Apex Court has relied upon its decision in Gurdwara Sahib's case (cited supra). The above position of law has also been followed by me in the decision in S.K.Komarasamy Gounder vs. Soundari and others, reported in (2018) 2 MLJ 580 , by holding that the plea of declaration of title to the suit property on the basis of the adverse possession, cannot be taken by the plaintiff as the abovesaid plea could be only used as a shield and not as a sword and accordingly, in the light of the abovesaid principles of law outlined by the Apex Court and in the other decision, it is found that the suit laid by the plaintiff in the present case seeking the relief of declaration only on the basis of adverse possession is found to be not maintainable and on that score alone, the plaintiff's suit has to fail. 13. The plaintiff has admitted the defendant's title to the suit property. Now, according to the defendant, the suit property had been leased out to the plaintiff by her on monthly rental basis and thereafter, when she demanded the possession of the suit property from the plaintiff, instead of handing over the possession, the plaintiff had started putting forth the false claim of title to the suit property. No doubt, the defendant has failed to establish the case of lease projected by her in respect of the suit property with the plaintiff. Be that as it may, the plaintiff, in her plaint, has not clearly averred as to on what basis she had occupied the suit property on 15.06.1983. Very vaguely, the plaintiff has claimed that she has been in the possession of the suit property from 15.06.1983 and put up a building and residing therein and also running a hotel and according to the plaintiff's case, on account of her open, exclusive and hostile possession, she has prescribed the title to the suit property by way of adverse possession as on 15.06.1995. The abovesaid case of the plaintiff is strongly repudiated by the defendant. Still, to sustain the abovesaid plea, the plaintiff has not placed any acceptable and reliable material with reference to the same. The abovesaid case of the plaintiff is strongly repudiated by the defendant. Still, to sustain the abovesaid plea, the plaintiff has not placed any acceptable and reliable material with reference to the same. When according to the plaintiff, she had prescribed the title to the suit property by way of adverse possession as on 15.06.1995, to establish the same, the plaintiff should have produced documents preceding 15.06.1995 upto the date of 15.06.1983, for upholding her claim of title to the suit property by way of adverse possession. However, the documents projected by the plaintiff emanate from the year 2008 and even most of the documents marked on the side of the plaintiff, namely, the property tax notice, water charges receipt, electricity bills etc., are all found to be standing only in the name of the defendant. However, the documents projected by the plaintiff emanate from the year 2008 and even most of the documents marked on the side of the plaintiff, namely, the property tax notice, water charges receipt, electricity bills etc., are all found to be standing only in the name of the defendant. Therefore, when the plaintiff has not endeavoured to place any document worth acceptance to show that she has been in the exclusive possession of the suit property by exerting hostile title on herself and thereby, exercising the absolute ownership over the suit property by paying taxes, charges etc., and when with reference to the same, there is no valid document at all placed on the part of the plaintiff and most of the documents placed on the part of the plaintiff are found to be standing only in the name of the defendant and furthermore, some of the documents projected by the plaintiff are found to have come into existence after the institution of the suit, and in particular, when there is no reliable and convincing material placed on the part of the plaintiff to hold that she has been in the adverse possession of the suit property openly, continuously and exerting hostile title to the suit property from 15.06.1983 till 15.06.1995 and when with reference to the same in particular and even thereafter, till the institution of the suit, when absolutely the plaintiff has failed to establish her case by placing acceptable and reliable material and when the documents projected by her, as above discussed, do not support her case, in such view of the matter, as rightly determined by the Courts below, it has to be held that the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish the claim of title to the suit property as putforth by her and in such view of the matter, even on factual matrix, it has to be held that the plaintiff has failed to establish her claim of title to the suit property based on the plea of adverse possession and thereby, the Courts below are found to be fully justified in refusing the relief of declaration sought for by the plaintiff. 14. 14. The plaintiff having failed to establish her claim of title to the suit property based on the adverse possession, however, would putforth the contention that the defendant has not resisted her case by filing independent written statement and also adducing evidence on her own and according to the plaintiff, inasmuch as the defendant had resisted her case through her power agent and when the power agent would not be competent to speak or depose on behalf of the defendant, it is contended that thereby, the plaintiff's case should be upheld. However, the abovesaid argument is found to be unsustainable and unacceptable. When the plaintiff has come forward with the suit seeking the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction on a particular set of facts and when the abovesaid facts are being stoutly challenged by the defendant, through her power agent, it is incumbent on the part of the plaintiff to establish her plea of adverse possession by placing acceptable and reliable materials. The plaintiff, having failed to establish the same, cannot be allowed to pick holes in the defence version and as rightly argued by the defendant's counsel, even in the absence of any defence putforth by the defendant or even in the event of the defendant remaining ex parte, the plaintiff, having laid the suit for the relief of declaration should establish her case with convincing material and cannot be allowed to sustain her case by picking holes in the defence version and thereby, endeavour to claim the reliefs as prayed for. In such view of the matter, the above arguments putforth by the plaintiff's counsel do not merit acceptance for acceding to her case and the same had been rightly discountenanced by the Courts below. 15. In such view of the matter, the above arguments putforth by the plaintiff's counsel do not merit acceptance for acceding to her case and the same had been rightly discountenanced by the Courts below. 15. In the light of the above discussions, when the plaintiff has failed to establish the claim of title to the suit property by way of adverse possession and furthermore, when the plaintiff is not entitled to lay and maintain the suit for declaration on the basis of adverse possession, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to say that the defendant has lost her right to retrieve the suit property by relying upon Section 27 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and also by relying upon Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and considering the abovesaid points, it is found that the defendant's title to the suit property has not been lost at any point of time as sought to be made out by the plaintiff and on the other hand, on a perusal of the documents projected on the part of the plaintiff as well as the defendant in toto, it is found that still the defendant has been asserting her title to the suit property one way or the other and in such view of the matter, in my considered opinion, no substantial question of law is found to be involved in this second appeal. Be that as it may, the substantial questions of law formulated in this second appeal are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. 16. The plaintiff's counsel, in support of his contentions, placed reliance upon the decisions in Munir Ahmad and others vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1989 SC 705 ; Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., and others, reported in AIR 2005 SC 439 ; Thirugnanasambandam vs. Kannan and others, reported in 2018 (6) CTC 198 ; Vidhyadhar vs. Mankikrao and another, reported in 1999 SAR (Civil) 442 and Iswar Bhai C.Patel @ Bachu Bhai Patel vs. Harihar Behera and another, reported in 1999 SAR (Civil) 431. Similarly, the defendant's counsel, in support of his contentions, placed reliance upon the decisions in State of Haryana vs. Mukesh Kumar and others, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 404 and T.Anjanappa and others vs. Somalingappa and another, reported in 2006 (50) CTC 378. Similarly, the defendant's counsel, in support of his contentions, placed reliance upon the decisions in State of Haryana vs. Mukesh Kumar and others, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 404 and T.Anjanappa and others vs. Somalingappa and another, reported in 2006 (50) CTC 378. The principles of law outlined in the above cited decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the case at hand. 17. For the reasons aforestated, the second appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.