Possession can be asserted without title; long-standing peaceful possession protects rights more than ownership claims in possessory title cases.

1. Heard.
This appeal has been admitted on following substantial questions of law :
"(a) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the first appellate Court was justified in ignoring the Commissioner's report without recording the proper reasons?
(b) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the first appellate Court was justified in holding that the earlier suit is for the same land?"

2. One Gulaban Bi filed Civil Suit No. 52A / 1962 in the Court of Civil Judge Class - II, Khairagarh against Kale Khan, her tenant for eviction and arrears of land. The suit was eventually decreed in favour of Gulaban Bi. Learned trial Court granted a decree of possession of the suit house as per the map attached with the plaint except portion 'A', 'B' 'C', 'D'. A decree of arrears of land of Rs. 7,000/- was also granted in favour of Gulaban Bi against Kale Khan. Gulaban Bi filed an execution case and in execution of decree, possession of the house and land of the area as indicated in the area specified in decree was handed over to Gulaban Bi.

3. The appellant plaintiff (deceased - Sanwal Ram) filed present Suit No. 59 - A / 1967 in the Court of Civil Judge Class - II Khairagarh against Gulaban Bi, Ramjan Ali, Sattar and Saffir Khan for possession and compensation on the pleading inter alia that the plaintiffs had purchased respective land vide sale deeds Ex. P1 and Ex.P - 2 and were in possession of land as described in two sale deeds. They were enjoying peaceful possession of the land. Their cause of action to file suit arose when in execution of decree passed in favour of Gulaban Bi, the land belonging to appellant was handed over to Gulaban Bi which land is distinct and separate from the land in dispute in litigation between Gulaban Bi and Kale Khan in Civil Suit No. 52 - A / 1962. On that basis, the plaintiff - appellants claimed possession of their land and also claimed compensation,

4. Vide judgment decree dated 31-7-1973, learned trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by dismissal of the suit, the appellant preferred a Civil Appeal No. 57 - A / 1973 which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 16-11-1976 passed by Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon. Learned District Judge held that rejection of application for amendment was illegal and therefore, plaintiff was permitted to amend plaint reserving consequential right of amendment by the defendant, framing of issue and decision thereon, upon collection of evidence in accordance with law.
Against the said decree and judgment, a Civil Revision No. 151/77 was preferred in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, which was partly allowed vide order dated 11-4-1079. The order of remand by the lower appellate Court for afresh decision by the trial Court was set aside and instead, direction was given that the lower appellate Court shall give an opportunity to the defendant to amend their written statement consequential to the amendment made by the plaintiffs and thereafter frame an issue if necessary and if evidence is necessary on that issue, it shall refer that issue only for trial to the trial Court in accordance with provision contained under Order XLI, R.25, CPC and after the finding is received, decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.

5. In compliance of the order of the High Court, the lower appellate Court framed additional issue and directed the trial Court to collect evidence and write finding on the issue. Therefore, learned trial Court submitted its finding on the evidence collected on newly framed issue vide order dated 31-7-1981.

6. In the meanwhile, appellant moved an applicatio