This Second Appeal by the first defendant arises out of a suit for a declaration of the respondent’s title and for an injunction against the appellant in respect of the suit properties. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that plaintiffs are not entitled to the properties. They have also held that the plaintiffs have not acquired title to the properties by adverse possession. Nevertheless, the lower appellate Court, differing from the trial Court, considered that the fact that the plaintiffs had been in possession of the suit properties since 1939 would entitle them to an injunction against the first defendant. The reasoning of the lower appellate Court for that view is stated thus:

“It is true that a person in wrongful possession can maintain his possession against all the world except the real owner. That does not mean that the real owner can take the law into his own hands and enter upon the property and dispossess the person in wrongful possession thereof by force. The proposition means that the person in wrongful possession of the property has to surrender his possession to the real owner on his taking the necessary steps to recover possession in a manner re