-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO.582 OF 2006 Ashok Babali Ghadi : Appellant (Orig.Plaintiff) V/s. Atmaram Krishna Tendolkar & Ors. : Respondents (Orig.Defendants) ... Mr.S.G. Karandikar for the appellant. ... CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATE : APRIL 17, 2008. P.C. 1. The appellant is the original plaintiff, whose suit was decreed and thereby the original defendant nos.1 to 3 were injuncted permanently from disturbing the peaceful possession of the appellant except under due process of law. The appellate Court, however, observed that the plaintiff is in possession of the land, but observed that defendant no.1 has better title and thereby set aside the judgement and decree. Taking all these facts into account, one thing is very clear that the appellant is in settled possession of the property since at least 1983. In view of this, the plaintiff is definitely entitled to -: 2 :- protect the possession and one who has better title needs to follow the process of law for getting possession and/or disturbing the possession of others. 2. In the result, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding so arrived at. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of accordingly. ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.