Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - This reference has been made by the learned Single Judge for consideration of the following question of law by a Larger Bench, which is arising in large number of cases before this Court as well as before the Subordinate Courts :-

"Whether the plaintiff is competent to seek declaration of title of the property by adverse possession, or whether the same is available only to the defendant to plead the same as defence in a suit for possession filed by the plaintiff on the basis of title ?"

2. It has been noticed by the learned Single Judge that as far as this Court is concerned, it has been consistently held in several decisions, i.e. Bhim Singh and others v. Zile Singh and others, (2006-3) PLR 159, Dewaki and others v. Dayawanti and others, 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 75, Kanak Ram and others v. Chanan Singh and others, 2007 (2) RCR (Civil) 213, Himat Rai v. Kehar Singh, (2008-4) PLR 624 and Gurudwara Sahib Sanauli v. State of Punjab and others, (2009-2) PLR 756, that the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for declaration declaring him to be the owner of a suit property on the plea of adverse possession, as the plea of adverse possession can only be raised in defence in a suit for recovery of possession on the basis of title. But the learned Judge has observed that there are several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and many other High Courts which have upheld the claims of adverse title on the basis of adverse possession in favour of the plaintiff. In this regard, the learned Single Judge has referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Des Raj v. Bhagat Ram, 2007(2) (2007) 9 SCC 641, Krishnamurthy S. Setlur v. O.V. Narasimha Setty and others, (2007) 3 SCC 569, Girja Kumar (2) and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, (2007) 14 SCC 90, and the decisions of other High Courts as well as Privy Council in Dileswar Behera and another v. Benudar Patel, 2008 (68) AIC 757 (Orissa), Govind Yadav v. Deoki Devi, AIR 1980 Patna 113, Kodiyan v. Karambir, 2007 (2) KLT 361, Pritam Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 5 MPHT 56,Bangalore Development Authority v. Vysya Bank Ltd. (Karnataka), 2005 (3) ICC 247, Secretary of State v. Debendra Lal Khan, AIR 1934 PC 23 and V. Muthiah Pillai v. Vedambal, AIR 1986 Madras 106. Keeping in view the principle laid down in these judgments, it has been observed that since there has been a long string of authorities of this court, where the view drawn is contrary to these judgments, therefore, it will be appropriate that the issue be settled by a Larger Bench.

3. Before we analyse the aforesaid question of law, a brief narration of facts of this case would be in order.

4. In the present case, a suit was filed by the plaintiff (respondent herein) seeking a declaration that he was in possession of the land measuring 23 kanals 6 marlas since 1922 and he had perfected his title to the said land by way of adverse possession. The defendants (appellants herein) contested the claim of the plaintiff by pleading that as per the revenue record, they are owners of the property. The predecessors of the plaintiff were tenants under the defendants' predecessors. And plaintiff's suit for declaration that he had become owner being in adverse possession was not maintainable, as he had no title in the suit land and merely on the basis of his adverse possession, he could not be declared owner. The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff declaring him to be owner in possession of the suit land, while recording the finding that his possession is hostile, open and to the knowledge of the owner since 1922, therefore, he has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. The appeal filed by the defendants against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the first appellate court.

5. In the instant Regular Second Appeal, the appellants (defendants) raised the aforesaid question of law, which has been referred for consideration by a Larger Bench.

6. We have he