Possession, even without valid title, confers substantive rights and can be protected from invasion by trespassers. A person in possession but without proprietary title can sue for recovery of possession on the strength of his possessory title against a trespasser.

1. Plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for recovery of possession of the suit property on the strength of his title. The Munsiff dismissed the suit holding that the oral assignment relied on by the plaintiff is not capable of transferring any valid title to him This has been confirmed by the District Judge.

2. The Munsiff held that the oral assignment of the property pleaded by the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 100/- hardly constitutes a valid transaction and it is incapable of transferring any valid title to him. It was also held that the defendant has no consistent case of possession and at any rate his evidence is totally unacceptable. Munsiff accepted the case of the plaintiff that the defendant trespassed into the property in October 1975. Counsel for the plaintiff 'submitted that the Munsiff having held so ought to have decreed the suit at least on the basis of the possessory title of the plaintiff.

3. The question to be considered is whether is a case where a plaintiff sets up proprietary title and having failed to prove it, can be advance a case on the strength of his possessory title. The Munsiff on a consideration of the evidence held that the defendant has no consistent case of possession and bis evidence is opposed to his very pleadings. The plea of adverse possession set up by the defendant was held not established. In view of the finding by the trial Court that defendant is in possession of the property only from October 1975 onwards and that be has trespassed upon the property the only inference possible is that the plaintiff has established his possessory title. Payment of revenue by the plaintiff as evidenced by Ext. A2 lends considerable strength to the case of the plaintiff regarding his possession of the property. As the suit was filed in 1976 closely after the trespass plea of adverse possession is well nigh impossible.

4. In the above context we have to consider whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the property from the defendant on the strength of his possessory title. Possession even without valid title is a substantive right which has been recognised by law. Such possession has legal incidents attached to it apart from ownership. A person can always protect his possessory title from invasion by trespassers. A person having possessory title can enforce that limited right against all persons except those who have a better title or a better right than himself. Where a person in possession but having no proprietary title is ejected from his property he can definitely sue for recovery of possession on the strength of his possessory title. The principle underlying the rule that possession is a good title against all except the person who can show a better title is stated in Narayana Row v. Dharmachar (ILR. 26 Madras 514) thus:

"The principle underlying the rule of law in question seems to be that acquisition of title by operation of the law of limitation being a lawful mode of acquiring title, the person in peaceable possession is entitled to maintain such possession against all but the true owner and that therefore a third party who has no better title than the person in possession has no right to invade upon the possession of the latter and interrupt or arrest his lawful acquisition of title by his continuing to remain in, possession for the statutory period. It is the true owner alone that is entitled to assert his title as against the person wrongfully in possession, and prevent such wrongful possession ripening into prescriptive title But a third party who without deriving title under the true owner and without his authority, interrupts such possession before it has ripened into prescriptive title, is a trespasser, not only against the true owner, but also against the party actually in possession; and. subject to the law of limitation, either of them is entitled to maintain a suit in ejectment against such intruder as a trespasser."

5. The Court can always protect the possesso