Possession is good title against all but the true owner, and a person in peaceable possession of land has an interest capable of being inherited, devised, or conveyed.

1. The facts found by the lower appellate Court and which in Second Appeal we have to accept are, that the uncle of the plaintiff, one Jayachar, was in possession of the site mentioned in the plaint since 1881, that he let defendants 1 and 2 into possession of the same in 1892 under a lease for a term of 5 years, that the 3rd defendant, the appellant in this Court, obtained possession of the same from the 1st and 2nd defendants and that Jayachar died in 1898 shortly before the institution of this suit, leaving a will devising the site to the plaintiff and admitting in the description of the site that it had all along been the plaintiffs property and that he, Jayachar, held it only as the plaintiffs agent. The District Judge also finds that the case of the 3rd defendant that the site belongs to him and that his agent allowed defendants 1 & 2 to enter into possession thereof is false, but that he obtained possession from the 1st and 2nd defendants during the term of the lease under which they had been let into possession by the plaintiffs uncle on the footing that up to the date of his death or at any rate until the 3rd defendant obtained possession of the site from the 1st and 2nd defendants. Jayachar was in possession of the site, through his tenants defendants land 2, either on his own behalf or as agent of the plaintiff and in the former case, the plaintiff derives title to possession under the will of Jayachar. The District Judge decreed in favour of the plaintiff and reversed the Munsifs decree, which dismissed the plaintiffs suit on the ground that the plaintiff did not establish his title to the site. The appellants counsel contends that the decree of the District Judge cannot be supported, as he does not find that plaintiff has made out his title that the possession which he finds in favour of Jayachar assuming that such possession will enure to the benefit of the plaintiff not being for the statutory period can give the plaintiff no title by prescription and that therefore the District Munsifs decree ought to be restored, notwithstanding that both the courts have found that the 3rd defendant has failed to establish title in himself.

2. The District Munsif found that neither the plaintiff nor the 3rd defendant was the owner of the site, but that one Srinivasa Row was the owner, and that on his death his sons have become entitled to the same as his heirs. If, as found both by the District Munsif and the District Judge, Jayachar was in possession since 1888, it must be presumed that he was the owner thereof, and that if he had held such possession on behalf of and as agent for the plaintiff, the plaintiff must be presumed to be the owner (Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act). Though this presumption is rebuttable and, as found by the District Munsif, it has been rebutted, it is unnecessary to call upon the District Judge to submit a finding as to whether or not he concurs in the finding of the District Munsif, that Srinivasa Raos sons are the owners of the site for even in the view that they were the owners at the date of this suit, the District Judge was right in holding that Jayachars possession--whether it was on his own behalf or as the plaintiffs agent, was sufficient to entitled the plaintiff to recover the site from the 3rd defendant who has established no title to the same nor possession prior to that of Jayachar and who by wrong, obtained possession of the site from the 1st and 2nd defendants as if they had been let into possession by himself and they had surrendered the same to him, and who has been withholding possession of the site from Jayachar and the plaintiff since and subsequent to the determination of the lease under which the 1st and 2nd defendants were holding under Jayachar. In the language of modern English authorities, " possession is good title against all but the true owner, (Asher v. Whitlock (1865) L.R. 1 Q.B. 1 and a person in peaceable possession of land has, as against every one but