Possession follows title, and the burden of proving possession lies with the plaintiff, which can be established through evidence or the presumption that possession follows title.

A. R. SOMNATH IYER, J.

( 1 ) THE source of this second appeal is a suit brought by a certain Subbiah for a declaration that he is the owner of a lane and open space to the west of this house and for an injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing his possession. Subbiah died during the pendency of the appeal in the lower appellate Court and his wife and children were brought on the record as his legal representatives.

( 2 ) THE defendant resisted the suit on the ground that the open space and the lane belonged to him and not to Subbiah. But both the Courts found that the plaintiff's case was true, but that the defendant had a right of way over the lane for the limited purpose of repairing his eastern wall. So they gave the plaintiff the decree which he wanted subject to the declaration as to the defendant's right of way.

( 3 ) SO this appeal by the defendant in which the restricted challenge is to the decrees of the Courts below in so far as they relate to the open space EFGH.

( 4 ) MR. Doreswamy appearing for the defendant maintained with great exercitation that the decrees of the Courts below are vitiated by obvious errors both in the appreciation of evidence and with respect to the plea of limitation urged by the defendant. He asked me to say that the finding of the Courts below that the plaintiff was the owner of the lane and the open space is contrary to law, and that likewise their finding that the plaintiff had proved his possession within the twelve years before the date of the institution of the suit is also unsupportable.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff's house bears municipal door No. 1093/3 and 4 whereas the defendant's house bears No. 1902/2. The plaintiff's house is on the eastern side and the defendant's house is to its west. It is between these two constructions that the suit lane and the open space exist. To the north of the lane there is a road, and the open space marked EGFH in the plaint sketch produced by the plaintiff is at the southern end of the land. And although the plaintiff gave the dimensions with respect to it, the concurrent finding of the Courts below is that that open space measures 9 feet east to west by 10 1/2 feet north to south. Similarly the finding recorded by "the Courts below is that about a year after the plaintiff purchased this property from his predecessors in title in the year 1937, the lavatory which was on the open space EFGH came down and that since then it has been an open space over which no acts of effective possession could be exercised or were exercised either by the plaintiff or by the defendant. They came to the conclusion ' on the basis of the documentary evidence available in the case that that open space was part of the property of the plaintiff, and that there was a presumption that possession follows title. At any rate, that is, what the Munsiff said about it, although both the Munsiff and the Civil Judge at the same time pointed out that the plaintiff had proved that he was in actual physical possession of the open space in the year 1962 as admitted by the defendant. Since the suit was brought on august 10, 1959 the Courts below repelled the plea of limitation holding that possession such as was necessary for the plaintiff to prove under Article 142 of the Limitation Act had thus been proved.

( 6 ) THE view taken by the Courts below in that way was subjected to severe criticism by Mr. Doreswamy who maintained that the documents of title which constituted the foundation for the finding of the Courts below that the plaintiff's ownership was proved, has been misread or misunderstood.

( 7 ) I do not think that the findings of the Courts below merit any such criticism for reasons I shall presently state.

( 8 ) THE documents on which both the Courts relied are Exhibits P-31, P-30, F-29, P-28, P-27, p-25 and P-10 in support of their conclusion that the lane and the open space belong to the plaintiff. Exhibit P-31 is a sale deed executed in the year 1887 by a certain Li

Click Here to Read the rest of this document