JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Submission of behalf of the appellants. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants while referring to the substantial question no. 2 has submitted that neither the learned Trial Court nor the Appellate Court framed specific issue in connection with adverse possession, although the plaintiffs /his predecessor in interest have been in possession of the property since 1932 and as per the records of right the possession of the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs was recorded as forceful possession in the remarks column i.e. shown as Gusban Kabja i.e. forceful possession of one Murat Sahu since three years before the final publication in the records of right in 1935 and the nature of the property was recorded as Sarna. The learned counsel submits that the property was never used for the purposes of Sarna and therefore the nature of the property was recorded as its nature stood at that point of time and therefore the nature of property with passage of time changed, as the same was in possession of the plaintiffs/their predecessor in interest. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 8 SCC 729 and has submitted that the learned Appellate Court has wrongly observed that that the plea of adverse possession can be raised only as a shield and not as sword. He has referred to paragraph no. 11 of the aforesaid judgment which in turn refers to the earlier judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in ( 1981) 2 SCC 103 ( Kshitish Chandra Bose vs. Commissioner of Ranchi ). The learned counsel has also submitted that the judgment referred to in paragraph 11 of the aforesaid judgment was relating to the municipality yet the decree was passed in favour of the person in possession by considering adverse possession. However, the learned counsel has fairly referred to paragraph 63 of the said judgement to submit that in case of properties dedicated to public cause, there can be no accrual of right by adverse possession. However, the learned counsel has fairly referred to paragraph 63 of the said judgement to submit that in case of properties dedicated to public cause, there can be no accrual of right by adverse possession. He submits that the said observation would not come in the way of the appellants as the property remained in possession of the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs since 1932 and was never used as Sarna since then and therefore the same cannot be said to be of property of public use. He has submitted that it has come in evidence that the land adjacent to the property claimed by the appellants was being used as Sarna land. Submission on behalf of the private respondents (representing the village community) 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents on the other hand opposed the prayer and has submitted that with respect to substantial question of law no.1 , the judgments which have been referred to therein were either related to claim of the concerned person on the basis of settlement or Hukumnama and one or the other cases were relating to cancellation of such settlement. He has submitted that the plaintiffs in the present case have stated in the plaint itself that the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs were in forceful possession of the land which was recorded as Sarna land. The learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the judgments which have been relied upon by the appellants do not apply in their favour. He has also submitted that the property was recorded as Sarna land which is for the use of the community at large and is used as place of worship for the Tribal people. 6. With respect to the substantial question of law no. 2 , the learned counsel has submitted that the law is not well settled that plea of adverse possession can be claimed as a matter of shield as well as sword by virtue of the judgment referred to in substantial question of law, but the claim of adverse possession of the appellants has been rejected not only on the said ground but also on the ground that it was not opened to the appellants to claim title as well as adverse possession. He has submitted that the plaintiffs were claiming title on the basis of sale deed and it was asserted that the State had issued rent receipt to the vendors of the plaintiff. However, in the present case the first rent receipt was issued only in the year 1986. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2022) 10 SCC 217 ( Kesar Bai vs. Genda Lal and Another ) and has referred to paragraph 7 thereof to submit that the plaintiff cannot claim Title and also adverse possession simultaneously. The learned counsel has also relied upon the relief as prayed for by the plaintiffs and has submitted that the plaintiffs were seeking perpetual injunction against all other villagers restraining them from coming over the suit property. The learned counsel has submitted that the substantial questions of law are fit to be answered in favour of the respondents. 7. During the course of argument, it transpired that the private respondents herein were added as defendants by virtue of a petition filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC and they were representing the village community at large. The learned counsel for the private respondents has submitted that he is representing the village community i.e. the private respondents. Arguments of the Respondent State. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has also opposed the prayer of the appellants and has submitted that both the substantial question of law are fit to be answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. She has submitted that the property in question was sarna land and was meant for the use of village community/public at large and was a place of worship. She has submitted that with the passage of time the nature of land cannot change and the villagers had also opposed the prayer of the appellants. Rejoinder argument of the appellants. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants in response has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Others (supra) and has referred to paragraph 61 of the said judgment to submit that adverse possession is heritable and there can be tacking of adverse possession by two or more persons as the right is a transmissible one. He submits that the predecessor in interest of the appellants had acquired the right by way of adverse possession of the property involved in this case and therefore the subsequent sale deeds were also essentially based on the claim of right of adverse possession. He submits that the right to continue in possession by way of adverse possession was acquired by predecessor in interest of the appellants and the appellants are in possession by virtue of registered sale deeds. He submits that under the facts and circumstances of this case the plea of adverse possession and the claim of title are not inconsistent with each other and therefore both can be claimed. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in 2014 SCC Online Patna 7936 passed in C.W. J.C. No. 16123 of 2013 ( Maya Devi vs. State of Bihar ) and has submitted that this judgment has been referred to in the first substantial question of law and it has been clearly held that the entry in cadastral survey, which was over hundred years old in the said case, regarding the nature of land was not an entry for all times in future. He has submitted that though at the relevant point of time the property involved in this case showed the entry as sarna land but with the passage of time the nature of land changed and admittedly the land was not utilized by the public as sarna land and remained in possession of the appellants. He submits that with the passage of time the nature of land has changed and it cannot be said to be sarna land. The plaintiffs have established petrol pump on the suit land. 10. Arguments concluded. 11. Post this case for judgement on 27.03.2025.