Sikri, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein is the original plaintiff which had filed the suit for decree of declaration to the effect that it had become owner of the suit property by adverse possession. Declaration was also sought to the effect that the revenue record showing ownership of respondent No.1 herein i.e. Gram Panchayat (defendant in the suit) is liable to be corrected in the name of the appellant and the auction already held by the Gram Panchayat of the land in dispute is null and void. Consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining Gram Panchayat from dispossessing the appellant from the disputed land was also prayed for. This suit was partly decreed by the trial Court granting relief of injunction. First appeal against that part of the judgment whereby relief of declaration was denied was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge and the second appeal preferred by the appellant has also been dismissed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide judgment dated 22nd September 2011. Undeterred by successive failures, the appellant has knocked at the door of this Court with the plea that its suit be decreed in entirety.

3. The appellant claims ownership by adverse possession on the ground that it is in possession of the land in dispute for sufficiently long period which fact has been established and, therefore, his suit could not be dismissed. We, however, find that this relief of declaration has been denied on the ground that suit for such a prayer was not maintainable inasmuch as declaration to this effect on the basis of adverse possession cannot be sought and the plea of adverse possession is available only as a defence to the defendant.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court had framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is in adverse possession of the suit land since 13.4.1952 as alleged? (OPP)

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether adverse possession of the plaintiff has matured into ownership? (OPP)

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? (OPP)

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for?(OPP)

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?(OPP)

6. Relief.

5. In so far as first issue is concerned, it was decided in favour of the plaintiff returning the findings that the appellant was in adverse possession of the suit property since 13.4.1952 as this fact had been proved by plethora of documentary evidence produced by the appellant. However, while deciding the second issue, the Court opined that no declaration can be sought on the basis of adverse possession inasmuch as adverse possession can be used as a shield and not as a sword. The learned Civil Judge relied upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurudwara Sahib Sannuali vs. State of Punjab (2009) 154 PLR page 756 and thus, decided the issue against the plaintiff. Issue No.3 was also, in the same vein, decided against the appellant. In so far as issue no.4 pertaining to relief of injunction is concerned, the learned Civil Judge held that as long uninterrupted possession of the appellant was established, the appellant was entitled to the decree of injunction and the respondents were restraining from dispossessing the appellant forcibly and illegally from the suit land and also restrained from damaging the building of Gurudwara Sahib. Issue No.5 was decided against the respondent on the ground that no evidence was led to show how the suit was not maintainable in the present form. While granting relief, the learned Civil Judge partly decreed the suit holding as under :

“It is held that plaintiff is in adverse possession over the suit property since 13.4.1952 and defendants are restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly and illegally from the suit property and further restrained from damaging the building of Gurudwara Sahib except according to due process of law. As discussed above, the remaining relief a