JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in O.S No.189/2008 on the file of the Principal Munsiff’s Court, Kasaragod. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:- The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction. According to the plaintiffs, the plaint A schedule properties were obtained by them as per document No.209/60 of SRO, Kasaragod. Item Nos.4 and 5 were obtained by them through the mother as per order in DR No.9383/66-67 Puthige. The Plaint A schedule property contains various cultivation and improvements done by the predecessors as well as plaintiffs. The plaint B schedule property is touching the plaint A schedule property and that the plaint B schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs for more than 60 years. On 19.07.2008, the defendant, namely the Village Officials of Puthige Village, came to the suit property stating that the plaint B schedule property belongs to them and they are intending to assign the same to a third party and hence the suit was filed. 3. The defendant entered appearance and contended that the suit is not maintainable. 2.90 acres of property in R.S No.39/1 pt and 2 acres of property in R.S No.40/2 pt of Puthige Village was assigned in favour of the plaintiff’s mother as per DR 9383/66-67/Puthige dated 21.03.1979 and patta was issued on 12.05.1983. Later the plaintiffs trespassed into the plaint B schedule property. The plaintiffs have no right title and interest over the plaint B schedule properties and it is intended to be assigned in favour of the third parties, who are landless people. After considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the property? If so from which date and whether to the knowledge of the defendant? 2. Whether the defendant has lost title to the plaint B schedule property ? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for? 4. Relief and cost? - 4. Ext.A1 to A22 documents were produced on behalf of the plaintiffs. Exts.C1 and C2 reports were marked. PW1 and PW2 were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. On consideration of the evidence on record, the Trial Court found that the claims set up by the plaintiffs are not maintainable and accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Relief and cost? - 4. Ext.A1 to A22 documents were produced on behalf of the plaintiffs. Exts.C1 and C2 reports were marked. PW1 and PW2 were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. On consideration of the evidence on record, the Trial Court found that the claims set up by the plaintiffs are not maintainable and accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the suit the plaintiffs preferred A.S No.85/2009 before the Sub-Court, Kasaragod. By the judgment dated 06.03.2014, the Sub-Court partly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in part by passing a judgment and decree for injunction, restraining the respondent from dispossessing the appellants from the plaint B schedule property otherwise than in accordance with law. However, the prayer for the declaration was declined on the ground that the claim for declaration based on adverse possession cannot be raised as a shield. In support of the said findings, the First Appellate Court relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8244/2013 ( Gurudwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayath Village Sirthala ). It is aggrieved by the judgment of the First Appellate Court that the plaintiffs have approached this Court with the present appeal by raising the following substantial question of law:- a) After having reversed the finding of the trial court regarding possession, was the lower appellate court justified in declining to grant declaratory prayer in the facts and circumstances of the case?. 5. Heard Shri.K.Ramakumar, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by S.M.Prasanth on behalf of the appellants and Shri.Denny Devassy, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State. 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the findings of the First Appellate Court that the plea of adverse possession cannot be raised as a sword, but only as a shield cannot be sustained in the light of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Others v. Manjit Kaur and others [ 2019(4) KHC 256 ]. Therefore, it is contended that the judgment of the First Appellate Court has to be interfered with. 7. Therefore, it is contended that the judgment of the First Appellate Court has to be interfered with. 7. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State would contend that the plaintiffs are not entitled for a declaratory decree inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence regarding their continuous possession of the plaint B schedule properties for more than 30 years and therefore, this Court may not grant any declaratory decree. 8. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar. 9. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered view that for granting the declaratory decree against the State, this Court has necessarily appreciated certain factual aspects. Although, while considering the appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is not possible for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion altogether, it is however possible for this Court, on finding that the appreciation of evidence is perverse to interfere with the findings rendered by the court below. It must be noticed in this case that the First Appellate Court refused to consider the question of the passing of a declaratory decree merely because of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurudwara Sahib (supra). In other words, the First Appellate Court did not deem it appropriate to test the evidence of the plaintiffs in order to see as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a declaratory decree. The position of law as stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurudwara Sahib (supra) can no longer be considered as a good law in the light of the decision of the three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal (supra), it is inevitable for this Court to find that the matter requires a remand and a re-consideration at the instance of the First Appellate Court. 10. Accordingly, while reversing the findings of the First Appellate Court that the plea of adverse possession cannot be raised as a sword and going by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal (supra), the plea of adverse possession can certainly be raised as a sword. The entitlement of the plaintiffs to get a declaratory decree will depend upon the appreciation by the First Appellate Court on the quality of evidence adduced by the plaintiffs before the Trial Court. The entitlement of the plaintiffs to get a declaratory decree will depend upon the appreciation by the First Appellate Court on the quality of evidence adduced by the plaintiffs before the Trial Court. 11. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed and judgment of the Sub-Court, Kasaragod, in AS No.85 of 2009 is set aside and remanded back to the limited extent of considering the entitlement of the appellants to seek a declaratory decree on the basis of a plea of adverse possession. 12. Before parting to this case, this Court has noticed the fact that the decree for injunction restraining the State from dispossessing the Appellants from the Plaint B schedule property otherwise than by due process of law has not been appealled against and the said decree has become final. Since this Court is setting aside the judgment of the First Appellant Court and remanding the matter back for considering the plea of the plaintiffs for a declaratory decree, it is made clear that till a final decision is rendered by the First Appellate Court, the State shall not initiate any proceedings against the plaintiffs for dispossessing them. The entitlement of the State to initiate further proceedings will depend upon the entitlement of the plaintiffs to claim a declaratory decree in respect of the plaint B Schedule property. With these observations, the appeal is allowed. The Sub-Court, Kasaragod, is directed to dispose of the appeal as per the priority. In order to enable the Sub-Court, Kasaragod, to undertake the exercise as ordered by this Court above, the party shall appear before the Sub-Court, Kasaragod, on 25.06.2025. On appearance, the Sub-Court shall proceed as directed in the judgment.