Point of Law: where a Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has reiterated the principle that possession is good against all but the true owner. In view of the dictum laid down in the aforesaid decision, a person in possession of the land in the assumed character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner.

JUDGMENT :

This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant in the civil suit challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.2.2019 in A.S.No.58/2016 of the Sub Court, Payyannur (hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellate court') by which judgment, the first appeal of the defendant was dismissed by the first appellate court confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2016 in O.S.No.33/2012 of the Munsiff's Court, Taliparamba (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court').

2. For brevity, the parties shall be referred to as referred in the original suit. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as follows:-

The plaintiff Sri.Hendry Thomas, aged 69 years, who is the respondent in this appeal, filed the original suit before the trial court claiming for permanent injunction interdicting the defendant from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and the house therein or committing any waste therein. The suit property measuring an area of 5 cents of land comprised in Re-Sy.No.21/5 of Taliparamba amsom, Thrichambaram desom, belongs to the plaintiff by virtue of a gift deed No.4034/1981 by Rev.Fr.James Nasrath for and on behalf of St.Paul's Church, Thrichambaram.

3. The plaintiff claimed to have obtained the property by virtue of the gift deed stated above. According to him, he has constructed a concrete house spending his own funds and he is residing therein with his family.

4. The defendant is none other than the son-in-law of the plaintiff and he has no manner of right over the property. The main complaint of the plaintiff is that the defendant is disturbing the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. Hence the suit was filed.

5. The defendant filed a written statement refuting the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff obtained the property by virtue of the gift deed cited supra. According to him, the title of the suit property itself is questionable as the alleged gift deed was executed by the church authorities for the family. He would contend that he has married the only daughter of the plaintiff and has been practically adopted as a member of the family subsequent to the marriage. Hence, he maintained that he has a right to reside in the house, as of right. He further contended that he has constructed a building in the property expending his own money and he has no other place of abode. He further contended that the plaintiff's wife Molly filed M.C.No.14/2012 against the defendant for a protection order, which was settled between the parties, agreeing to reside together in the plaint schedule building.

6. The plaintiff's wife had been examined as PW1. The defendant and two witnesses were examined as DWs.1 to 3. The plaintiff marked Exts.A1 to A9 series and the defendant marked Exts.B1 to B8 series.

7. The trial court held that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the plaint schedule property and the defendant, who is the son-in-law of the plaintiff, has no manner of right in interfering with the possession of the plaint schedule building. The trial court further held that the awards passed in M.C.Nos.14/2012 and 19/2012 do not create any interest in the property or the house therein, which absolutely belong to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit was decreed.

8. The defendant filed an appeal before the first appellate court. The first appellate court also came to the conclusion that the defendant has no manner of right to disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule building. The appeal was dismissed, accordingly.

9. Heard Sri.Blaze.K.Jose, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.V.T.Madhavan Unni, the learned counsel for the respondent.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the courts below erred in decreeing the suit for prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedul