Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.

1. The only point taken by the learned vakil for the appellant in this case has reference to the possibility of the plaintiffs action being regarded by the Court not as one based on title acquired by adverse possession as was sought to be done in the alternative in both the lower Courts but on a third ground altogether, namely, that the plaintiff, while being lawfully in possession of the property has been deprived of that possession by a wrongful act of defendant. I do not for a moment wish to say that such a suit may not be maintainable apart altogether from the provisions of Section 9, Specific Relief Act. No doubt, if the suit had been instituted under the provisions of that section it would not be open to the defendant to set up any question of title to the property, and all that the Court would be called upon to enquire into and decide would be whether or not the dispossession was due to a wrongful act of the defendant. But if the claim was intended to be sustained on the mere ground that the plaintiff was in lawful possession of the property and he was dispossessed of the same by the defendant committing an act of trespass, it seems to me that i