BOHRA KANHAIYA LAL Vs. GIRWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal must be allowed it is impossible to contest the proposition that the onus of establishing title by reason of possession for a certain requisite period lies upon the person asserting such possession. In other words, the burden of proving title by adverse possession lies upon the person claiming to have acquired title by such possession.

(2.) The findings of the lower Appellate Court in the present case are that the plaintiff's title to the property in dispute has been proved, and that the evidence of both parties as regards possession is worthless. On these findings, in our judgment, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree.

(3.) The article applicable to a suit in which the plaintiff sues for possession of immoveable property on the basis of his title is Art. 144 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, and if in such a suit the plaintiff proves his title, he is entitled to a decree, unless the defendant succeeds is establishing his adverse possession for a period of more than 12 years. To cases in which the plaintiff claims relief on the basis of his title Art. 142 has no application. That article applies to suit in which the plaintiff claims possession of property on the ground that while in possession he was dispossessed, or his possession was discontinued by the defendant, In other words that article is restricted to cases in which the relief for possession sought by the plaintiff is based on what may be styled as possessory title. Every person is entitled to have his peaceful possession protected and no one has a right to take the law in his own hands and disturb the peaceful possession of another. Possession is in itself title and good against every body except the true owner. In short, there may be cases in which a parson, though not the true owner, has been in peaceful possession of property and his possession is disturbed. In such cases the person dispossessed has a right to claim to be restored back to possession on proving the fact of his possession and his dispossession or discontinuance of his possession by the defendant within a period of 12 years prior to the institution of the suit. To such cases Art. 142 applies, and the burden of proving the fact that the plaintiff was in possession and was dispossessed within twelve years of the date of the suit lies on the plaintiff and, on proving these facts, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree unless the defendant established that ha is the true owner of the property in dispute.