JUDGMENT : 1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 24/01/2017 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Ashok Nagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 12-A/2015 and Regular Civil Appeal No.23-A/2015, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 20/06/2014 passed by First Civil Judge, Class-I, Ashok Nagar in Civil Suit No.07-A/2014. 2. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction as well as the respondent No.1 filed cross-objection. The trial Court by judgment and decree dated 20/06/2014, dismissed the suit filed by the appellant as well as dismissed the cross-objection filed by the respondent No.1. 3. Being aggrieved by dismissal of the suit, the appellant filed a regular civil appeal, which was registered as RCA No.12-A/2015 and the respondent No.1 being aggrieved by dismissal of his cross-objection, also filed a regular civil appeal, which was registered as RCA No.23-A/2015. Both the regular civil appeals have been decided by the appellate Court by a common judgment and decree dated 24/01/2017. 4. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that the plaintiff/ appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the ground that he is the owner and in possession of the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 516/4, area 0.500 hectare and he is also in possession of land bearing survey no.516/3, area 0.418 hectare situated in village Mudra, Naisarai, Tahsil Sadhora, District Ashok Nagar. It is the case of the plaintiff/appellant that he got Survey no.516/4 in settlement, whereas his predecessors were in possession of Survey no. 516/3 and he is also still possession thereof. It was further pleaded that Survey no.516/4 and Survey no. 516/3 are a single plot and there is no mud wall between the same. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff is cultivating both the lands since the life time of predecessors. Although the name of the respondent No.1 is recorded in the revenue record, but neither the respondent no.1 had remained in possession of the same nor he had carried out any agricultural activities. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff is cultivating both the lands since the life time of predecessors. Although the name of the respondent No.1 is recorded in the revenue record, but neither the respondent no.1 had remained in possession of the same nor he had carried out any agricultural activities. It was further pleaded that although survey no.516/3 has been settled in favour of the respondent no.1 but under the garb of settlement, the respondent no.1 is trying to take possession of the entire land and even otherwise, the plaintiff/appellant has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. 5. The respondent No.1 filed his written statement and denied that survey no.516/3 and survey no.516/4 are a single plot, but pleaded that both the lands are separated by a mud wall. It is further submitted that neither the plaintiff nor his predecessors were ever in possession of the land in dispute. Survey no.516/3 was settled in his favour by order passed in Revenue Case No.102-A/19/1990-1991. The name of the respondent No.1 is recorded in the revenue records and the respondent No.1 is in possession of the same. The plaintiff was never threatened and it was pleaded that under the garb of survey no.516/4, the plaintiff wants to grab his property. 6. A cross-objection was also filed by the respondent no.1 pleading that he is the sole owner and is in possession of survey no.516/3 and since the plaintiff is trying to take possession of survey no.516/3, therefore, permanent injunction may be issued against him. The cross-objection filed by the respondent no.1 was disputed by the plaintiff by filing the written statement. 7. The trial Court after framing issues, recording evidence of the parties and hearing both the parties, by the judgment and decree dated 20/06/2014 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff as well as dismissed the cross-objection filed by the respondent no.1. 8. Being aggrieved by dismissal of the suit as well as dismissal of the cross-objection, the plaintiff as well as the respondent No.1 filed separate appeals, which have been decided by the appellate Court, by a common judgment and decree. 9. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the Courts below have failed to consider that the appellant has perfected his title over Survey No.516/3 by way of adverse possession. 9. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the Courts below have failed to consider that the appellant has perfected his title over Survey No.516/3 by way of adverse possession. The findings given by the Courts below with regard to settlement in favour of the respondent no.1 is erroneous because the settlement was nothing, but was merely a piece of paper which was never acted upon. The appellate Court has committed material illegality by holding that the appellant is trying to dispossess the respondent No.1 from survey no.516/3 as well as the revenue records have not been considered by the Courts below in a proper perspective. 10. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant. 11. So far as the title of the respondent no.1 over Survey No. 516/3 is concerned, undisputedly, survey No.516/3 and Survey No.516/4 are the Government lands. It is the case of the appellant that survey no.516/4 was settled in his favour, whereas survey no.516/3 was settled in favour of the respondent No.1, but the settlement in favour of the respondent No.1 was claimed to be a simple a piece of paper because it was never acted upon and the appellant always remained in possession of Survey No.516/3 also. So far as Survey No.516/3 is concerned, admittedly, the plaintiff/ appellant has not claimed that he became the owner and is in possession of the same by virtue of any document of title or entitlement. It is the case of the appellant that he is in possession of Survey No. 516/3 since the lifetime of his predecessors and thus, he has perfected the title by way of adverse possession. 12. It is well-settled law that the claim based on adverse possession cannot be raised by the plaintiff and it is merely a defence, which can be used as a shield by the defendant. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala, reported in 2014 (3) MPLJ 36 has held as under:- ''7. In the Second Appeal, the relief of ownership by adverse possession is again denied holding that such a suit is not maintainable. There cannot be any quarrel to this extent the judgments of the courts below are correct and without any blemish. In the Second Appeal, the relief of ownership by adverse possession is again denied holding that such a suit is not maintainable. There cannot be any quarrel to this extent 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 filed against the appellant and appellant is arrayed as defendant that it can use this adverse possession as a shield/defence. '' 14. This Court in the case of Jwala Prasad and Others vs. State of MP, reported in ILR (2016) MP 1133, has held as under:- '' 7.Apart from the aforesaid, I am of the view that the persons like the appellants/ plaintiffs did not have any right to file the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction on the ground of adverse possession. Such ground can be used by the persons like appellants as a shield to defend their right and possession but by entertaining the impugned suit, they could not be permitted to use the same as a sword, as such the appellants/ plaintiffs did not have any right to file the suit for declaration on the basis of adverse possession unless they are having the title over the property on the basis of some source or documents. My such approach is fully fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala reported in 2014(3) MPLJ 36 in which it was held as under:- ''7.In the Second Appeal, the relief of ownership by adverse possession is again denied holding that such a suit is not maintainable. There cannot be any quarrel to this extent 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 filed against the appellant and appellant is arrayed as defendant that it can use this adverse possession as a shield/defence.'' 15. Thus, it is clear that the suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground of adverse possession over survey No.516/3 is not maintainable. Only if proceedings filed against the appellant and appellant is arrayed as defendant that it can use this adverse possession as a shield/defence.'' 15. Thus, it is clear that the suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground of adverse possession over survey No.516/3 is not maintainable. Even otherwise, in the revenue records except for one year, it was never mentioned that the plaintiff/appellant is in possession of survey no.516/3. Furthermore, the question of possession is a disputed question of fact which cannot be disturbed while exercising power under Section 100 of CPC until and unless the findings given by the Courts below are perverse. No perversity could be pointed out by the counsel for the appellant. As the appellant himself has admitted that survey no.516/3 has been settled in favour of the respondent No.1 and the Court below has found that the respondent No.1 is in possession of survey no. 516/3, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellate Court did not commit any mistake by allowing Civil Appeal No.23-A/2015 filed by the respondent No.1. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Courts below did not commit any illegality by dismissing the suit filed by the appellant. 16. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 24/01/2017 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Ashok Nagar in RCA No.12-A/2015 and RCA No.23-A/2015 is hereby affirmed. As no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. 17. Decree be drawn accordingly.