Case: Somnath Barman Vs. Dr. S. P. Raju &amp; Anr

2. The subject matter of the suit is a piece of land in Himayatnagar measuring 2856 sq. yards. The plaintiffs case is that he purchased this land from one Jamsheer Khan with other plots in the vicinity under two sale deeds marked Exhs. P-2 and P-3; thereafter he was in possession of the same; when he was in possession, the second defendant trespassed into the said property and took possession of the same, thereafter he illegally sold the same to the Ist defendant. The defendant denied the plaint allegations. They denied that the plaintiff had any title to the suit property or that he was in possession of the same at any time. On the other hand they pleaded that the second defendant who had acquired title to the suit property by adverse possession had sold the same to the 1st defendant in the year 1946.3. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not established his title to the suit property. It also held that the plaintiff has not satisfactorily proved that he was in possession of the suit property at any time. In view of those findings it thought that it was not necessary to go into the defendants plea of adverse possession. In the result it dismissed the plaintiffs suit. In appeal the High Court agreed with the trail Court that the plaintiff has not proved his title to the suit property. It rejected the plea of the defendants that they have perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession. But differing from the trail Court it came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was put into possession of the suit property by his vendor Jamsheer Khan Sahab in about the year 1930 and he was in possession of the same till about the year 1945, when the second defendant trespassed on the same and took possession of it.4. It view of the concurrent finding reached by the trail Court and the High Court that the plaintiff has not proved his title, that question was not reopened in this Court. The finding of the High Court that the defendants have not established their plea of title by adverse possession was challenged though feebly. It was contended before us that the plaintiff who based his suit on title and prior possession having failed to establish his title, his suit has to fail. Further the finding of the High Court that the plaintiff was in possession of the said property between 1930 to 1945 was also assailed before us.

Court's reasoning:
The suit from which this appeal arises was initially instituted on the original side of the High Court of Hyderabad in the year 1949. Therefor to establish his claim of title by adverse possession the 1st defendant must primarily depend on the fact that the second defendant was in possession of the suit property for a period of over nine years before he sold the same to him. Though the second defendant filed a written statement supporting the case of the 1st defendant and though he was present at the time of hearing on several occasions, he was not examined as a witness in this case to support the plea of adverse possession put forward by the defendants. No explanation is forthcoming for his non-examination. This circumstance goes a long way to discredit the defendants plea of adverse possession. The 1st defendants evidence as regards adverse possession is of very little significance as his knowledge of the suit property prior to the date he purchased the same is very little. The only other evidence relied on in support of the plea of adverse possession is that of D. W. 2, Shambhu Prashad who claims to have taken the suit property on lease from the second defendant. The lease deed said to have been executed by him is marked as Exh. D/1. It is not explained how the Ist defendant came into possession of Exh. D/1. Though the suit was filed as far back as 1949, Exh. D/1 was produced into Court for the first time in the year 1960. No explanation has been given for this inordinate delay in producing Exh. D/1, (an unregistered document) in Court. According to D. W. 2, the Ist defendant knew about this document as far back as 1950. Under these circumstances, the High Court was fully justified in rejecting the testimony of D. W. 2 and not relying on Exh. D/1. The other evidence adduced by the Ist defendant relating to the plea of adverse possession was not commended for our acceptance. Therefore we need not consider the same. Hence we agree with the High Court that the defendants have failed to establish their plea of adversewe bear in mind the fact that the question for decision is whether the plaintiff or the 2nd defendant was in possession of the suit property between the years 1930 to 1945, there is hardly any doubt that the preponderance of evidence is in favour of the plaintiffs case. As seen earlier, the defendants have not produced any reliable evidence to support their case. Hence we agree with the High Court that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing that he was in possession of the suit property prior toare unable to accept this contention as correct. In our opinion the possession of the plaintiff prior to 1945 is a good title against all but the true owner. The defendants who are mere trespassers cannot defeat the plaintiffs lawful possession by ousting him from the suit property. Possessory title is a good title as against everybody other than the lawful owner. In Ismail Ariff v. Mahomed Ghouse, (1893) 20 Ind App 99 (PC), the Judicial Committee came to the conclusion that a person having possessory title can get a declaration that he was the owner of the land in suit and an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession. Therein it was observed that the possession of the plaintiff was a sufficient evidence of title as owner against the defendant.10. In Narayana Row v. Dharmachar, (1903) ILR 26 Mad 514   a bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Bhashyam Ayyangar and Moore, JJ., held that possession is, under the Indian, as under the English law, good title against all but the true owner.Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act is in no way inconsistent with the position that as against a wrongdoer, prior possession of the plaintiff, in an action of ejectment, is sufficient title, even if the suit be brought more than six months after the act of dispossession complained of and that the wrongdoer cannot successfully resist the suit by showing that the title and right to possession are in a third person.The same view was taken by the Bombay High Court in Krishnarao Yashwant v. Vasudev Appaji Ghotikar, (1884) ILR 8 Bom 371. That was also the view taken by the Allahabad High Court - See Umrao Singh v. Ramji Das, ILR 36 All 51 = (AIR 1914 All 54 (2)). Wali Ahmed Khan v. Ajudhia Kundu, (1891) ILR 13 All 537. In Subodh Gopal Bose v. Province of Bihar, AIR 1950 Pat 222   the Patna High Court adhered to the view taken by the Madras, Bombay and Allahabad High Courts. The contrary view taken by the Calcutta High Court in Debi Churn Boldo v. Issur Chunder Manjee, (1883) ILR 9 Cal 39; Ertaza Hossein v. Bany Mistry, (1883) ILR 9 Cal 130, Purmeshur Chowdhry v. Birjo Lall Chowdhry, (1890) ILR 17 Cal 256 and Nisa Chand Gaita v. Kanchiram Bagani, (1899) ILR 26 Cal 579,   in our opinion does not lay down the law correctly.