the parties has not been pleaded or established to have come to an end and the abovesaid relationship could not have also been put to an end on the basis of the oral sale put forth by the plaintiff, as the plea of oral sale put forth by the plaintiff is an invalid transaction, in such view of the matter, the lessor and lessee relationship between the first defendant and the plaintiff would continue to operate and in such view of the matter, as rightly contended by the first defendant's counsel, taking advantage of the close relationship between the parties, it is found that the plaintiff, without putting the first defendant on notice, appears to have clandestinely secured the patta in his name and in such view of the matter, the patta projected by the plaintiff and the kists receipts projected by the plaintiff for sustaining the title to the suit property either on the basis of the oral sale or on the basis of the adverse possession cannot, at all, be countenanced in any manner and liable to be rejected in toto. The plaintiff having taken the plea of lessee in respect of the 74 cents under the first defendant and when the abovesaid status of the plaintiff has not been pleaded to have come to an end and the same could not have been put to an end by way of the alleged oral sale projected by the plaintiff, therefore, the lessor lessee relationship being in vogue between the parties, conversely, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to claim the title to the suit property, particularly, the extent of 74 cents by way of the adverse title. 14. As above noted, the plaintiff knowing fully well that he cannot plead and obtain the relief of declaration of title to the suit property on the basis of the oral sale, accordingly, he has come forward with the case by seeking the relief of declaration of title to the suit property on the basis of the adverse possession. In the light of the abovesaid position, when the plaintiff has claimed the relief of declaration of title to the suit property i.e. the extent of 74 cents based on the plea of adverse possession and urged the court to grant the said relief of declaration of title on the plea of adverse possession, it is found that on that score alone, the plaintiff's suit is legally unsustainable in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 669. In the said decision, the Apex Court has held that the declaration of ownership of land, on the basis of the adverse possession, cannot be sought by the plaintiff, but, the claim of ownership by adverse possession can be made by way of defence when arrayed as defendant in the proceedings against him and on that determination, upheld the declinement of the decree to the plaintiff by way of adverse possession in the said case by the Trial Court and thus, it is found that when the plaintiff has come forward with the present suit claiming the relief of declaration to the suit property on the basis of adverse possession and when on that basis, the plaintiff is not entitled
