JUDGMENT Ismail, J. - This is a Defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a kotha marked in the sketch map as ABCD. The Plaintiff came to Court on the allegations that he had been in peaceful possession of this building for six or seven years and that he purchased it from his cousin Ram Gopal when the latter left the village. The Plaintiff's case is that he went out one evening on some business and on his return he found that the door of the kotha was blocked from behind. He accordingly reported the matter to the police and instituted the present suit. The Defendants resisted this claim and asserted that they were in possession of the kotha which belonged to their adoptive grandfather Sambuman and that the Defendants have always been in possession of it. They denied the Plaintiff's possession of the kotha in dispute. The learned Munsif upon a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff was in possession of the kotha in dispute and before him Ram Gopal was in possession. He has held that the Defendants took the law into their own hands in May 1934 and blocked the door from inside by building a wall while leaving the door intact, and that they opened a new door in the back wall to allow communication with their own house. The learned Munsif is of the opinion that once upon a time Sambuman was the owner of this kothi, but he lost that ownership a long time ago and that the Plaintiff and his predecessor Ram Gopal and his brothers have been in peaceful possess: on for more than 12 years. In his opinion, the right and title of the Defendants and their predecessors was lest by influx of time. The learned Judge on appeal has affirmed the finding of the learned Munsif. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has strenuously contended that it was for the Plaintiff to prove his title affirmatively before the could succeed in obtaining a decree for possession. Ordinarily it is so. But the facts of this case are somewhat peculiar. The Plaintiff, according to the ending, has failed to trace his title to any document either by way of sale or gift. Ordinarily it is so. But the facts of this case are somewhat peculiar. The Plaintiff, according to the ending, has failed to trace his title to any document either by way of sale or gift. Similarly according to the finding of the learned Judge, the Defendants have also no title in the property, having been out of possession for over r 20 years. The question is whether on these findings the Plaintiff is entitled to succeed. In my opinion, having regard to the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the Plaintiff and his predecessors were in actual possession of this property peacefully for a number of years, it is for the Defendants to prove affirmatively their title to the property. This they have not done. The Plaintiff therefore can succeed On possessor title alone. In Ismail Ariff v. Mahomed Ghous, (1893) 20 Cal. 834 (p.c.) a suit was brought by a person for a declaration of his title and for an injunction against the Defendant restraining him from interfering with the Plaintiff's possession. The Defendant claimed to be the mutawalli of the property which was claimed to be waqf property. The parties failed to prove their title and their Lordships at page 842 held as follows: The possess on of the Plaintiff was sufficient evidence of title as owner against the Defendant. By Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act (Act I of 1877), if the Plaintiff had been dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law, he could, by a suit instituted within six months from the date of the dispossession, have recovered possession, notwithstanding any other title that might be set up in such suit. If he could thus recover possession from a person who might be able to prove a title, it is certainly right and just that he should be able, against a person who has no title and is a mare wrong-doer, to obtain a declaration of title as owner 2. This case has been followed in a long line of decisions in every High Court in India. This case has been followed in a long line of decisions in every High Court in India. In Ganesh v. Dasso, (l927) 25 A L J 857 a Bench of this Court held that it was settled law that possessor title is good against everybody except the true owner, and in case of wrongful ouster the pain-tiff is entitled to succeed upon the strength of previous possession, if the Defendant fails to prove better title. The same view has been taken in Sahodra Kuer v. Gobardhan Tiwari. (1917) 39 Ind. Cas. 458 In the present case the Plaintiff has proved his possession to the satisfaction of the Courts below. The Defendants have failed to prove a better title than the Plaintiff. Under the circumstances, the Plaintiff is certainly entitled to eject the Defendants. my judgment, the Courts below have come to a right conclusion. I dismiss the appeal with costs throughout. Leave to appeal under Letters Patent is refused.