Madhavan Nair, J.

1. In this case the plaintiff appellant sought to recover possession of a land from defendant 2; and he also asked for an order of injunction against him. It is not necessary to state the facts of the case in any detail.

2. The plaintiff supported his claim on the basis of title and also possession. The property admittedly belonged to Sanjivappa. The plaintiff lived with him and continued in possession of his land and his house after his death till 1925 when he was dispossessed of the former by defendant 2. The plaintiff put forward a "will"Which has been found to be a forgery by the lower Courts. Defendant 2 resisted the plaintiffs case on the ground that he has obtained a sale deed from defendants 3 and 4. Both the lower Courts have found that defendants 3 and 4 had no title to convey to defendant 2 and that he has not proved his title. The result is that neither the plaintiff nor defendant 2 has been able to prove his title but the plaintiff has succeeded in showing that he was in possession for five years. The question is whether on the ground of that possession for five years he is not entitled to get a decree against defendant 2 who has neither title n