IMPORTANT POINT
In the absence of proof of better title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title.

Headnote:Specific Relief Act, 1963-Section 6-Suit alleging title as well as possession over disputed piece of land-Plaintiff and defendant both claim to be owning two adjoining pieces of land-Dispute as to exact dimension and shapes of pieces of land claimed to be owned and possessed respectively by the two parties-Piece of land which forms subject-matter of the suit is in possession of plaintiff-Plaintiff was raising construction over the piece of land in his possession when it was obstructed by defendant appellant claiming that the land formed part of his property and was owned by him-Plaintiff filed suit alleging his title as also his possession over the disputed piece of land-Trial Court issued injunction restraining defendant appellant from interfering with peaceful possession of plaintiff-Plaintiff had failed in proving his title but succeeded in proving possession over the suit property-Whether suit filed by plaintiff based on his title was defective-(No)-Person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession.
       Held : So far as the Indian law is concerned the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such possession he may even use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser. A rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do so peacefully and without the use of unreasonable force. If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law; he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with his possession. The law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injunction even a rightful owner from using force or taking law in his own hands, and also by restoring him in possession even from the rightful owner (of course subject to the law of limitation), if the latter has dispossessed the prior possession by use of force. In the absence of proof of better title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title. Law presumes the possession to go with the title unless rebutted. The owner of any property may prevent even by using reasonable force a trespasser from an attempted trespass, when it is in the process of being committed, or is of a filmsy character, or recurring, intermittent, stray or casual in nature, or has just been committed, while the rightful owner did not have enough time to have recourse to law. In the last of t0he cases, the possession of the trespasser, just entered into would not be called as one acquiesced to by the true owner. (Para 8)
       It is the settled or effective possession of a person without title which would entitle him to protect his possession even as against the true owner. The concept of settled possession and the right of the possessor to protect his possession against the owner has come to be settled by a catena of decisions. (Para 9)
       In the present case the Court has found the plaintiff as having failed in proving his title. Nevertheless, he has been found to be in settled possession of the property. Even the defendant failed in proving his title over the disputed land so as to substantiate his entitlement to evict the plaintiff. The Trial Court therefore left the question of title open and proceeded to determine the suit on the basis of possession, protecting the established possession and restraining the attempted interference therewith. The Trial Court and the High Court have rightly decided the suit. It is still open to the defendant-appellant to file a suit based on his title against the plaintiff-respondent and evict the latter on the former establishing his better right to possess the property. (Para 11)

Judgement Key Points

The case involves a dispute over a piece of land where both the plaintiff and the defendant claim ownership of adjoining parcels. The primary issue is the boundary and the extent of each party's possession, with the plaintiff currently in possession of the disputed land and raising construction there. The defendant contends that the land belongs to him and attempts to interfere with the plaintiff's possession.

The key legal question revolves around whether the plaintiff's possession, despite failing to prove clear ownership or title, is protected under the law. The courts examined whether possession alone, especially when peaceful and settled, can serve as sufficient evidence of ownership and whether the plaintiff's possession warrants protection against the defendant’s claims.

The courts held that in the absence of proof of better title, possession—particularly peaceful and settled possession—is itself evidence of ownership and is protected by law. The person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain it and can seek legal remedies to prevent interference, even if their title is not fully established. The courts found that the plaintiff was in settled possession and that the defendant failed to prove his ownership rights.

As a result, the courts upheld the injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession. They clarified that the defendant is free to pursue a separate legal action based on his ownership rights if he can establish better title. The courts emphasized that possession, especially peaceful possession, is protected by law and that possession without proof of title remains valid until legally dispossessed through due process.

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-The defendant is in appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, upheld by the High Court, restraining him from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the respondent.

2. The plaintiff and the defendant- both have expired. Their LRs are on record. For the sake of convenience we are making reference to the original parties i.e. the plaintiff and the defendant.

3. The suit property, a piece of land, is situated in Arckempanahally, 36th Division. It appears that the plaintiff and the defendant both claim to be owning two adjoining pieces of land. There is a dispute as to the extent dimensions and shapes (triangular or rectangular) of the pieces of land claimed to be owned and possessed respectively by the two parties. The real dispute, it seems, is about the demarcation of the boundaries of the two pieces of land. However, the fact remains, and that is relevant for our purpose, that the piece of land which forms the subject-matter of the suit is in the possession of the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondent was raising construction ever the piece of land in his possession, and that was obstructed by the defendant-appellant claiming that the land formed part of his property and was owned by him. The plaintiff filed a suit alleging his title as also his possession over the disputed piece of land. The Trial Court found that although the plaintiff had failed in proving his title, he had succeeded in proving his possession over the suit property which he was entitled to protect unless dispossessed therefrom by due process of law. On this finding the Trial Court issued an injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff-respondent over the suit property.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the suit filed by the plaintiff was based on his title. The suit itself was defective inasmuch as declaration of title was not sought for though it was in dispute. Next, it is submitted that if the suit is based on title and if the plaintiff failed in proving his title, the suit ought to have been dismissed without regard to the fact that the plaintiff was in possession and whether the defendant had succeeded in proving his title or not. We find no merit in both these submissions so made and with force.

5. Salmond states in Jurisprudence (Tweltfth Edition), "few relationships are as vital as man as that of possession, and we may expect any system of law, however primitive, to provide rules for its protection.....Law must provide for the safeguarding of possession. Human nature being what it is men are tempted to prefer their own selfish and immediate interests to the wide and long-term interests of society in general. But since an attack on a man s possession is an attack on something which may be essential to him, it becomes almost tantamount to an assault on the man himself, and the possessor may well be stirred to defend himself it with force. The result is violence, chaos and disorder." (at pp. 265, 266).

"In English Law possession is a good title of right against anyone who cannot show a better. A wrongful possessor has the rights of an owner with respect to all persons except earlier possessors and except the true owner himself. Many other legal systems, however, go much further than this, and treat possession as a provisional or temporary title even against the true owner himself. Even a wrongdoer, who is deprived of his possession, can recover it from any person whatever, simply on the ground of his possession. Even the true owner, who takes his own may be forced in this way to restore it to the wrongdoer, and will not be permitted to set up his own superior title to it. He must first give up possession, and then proceed in due course of law for the recovery of the thing on the ground of his ownership. The intention of the law is that eve

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 1271

IMPORTANT POINTIn the absence of proof of better title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title.

Cases Referred (8)

IMPORTANT POINT
In the absence of proof of better title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title.