JUDGMENT : 1. The facts leading to this appeal are briefly as follows : Applt. Keshav has a house in Jangampura bearing Municipal Nos. 24 and 25. To the east of this house there is an 'otta'. The Municipality, Indore, gave notice to the pltf. to remove the 'otta' and this led to the present suit. The Municipality contends that the pltf. is not the owner of the land under the 'otta' and the same belongs to the Municipality. The suit was decreed by the Addl. Munsiff City, Indore, but in appeal the decree was revsd. and suit was dismissed by the Addl. Dist. J., Indore. 2. The pltf's. claim is on the basis of a sale certificate dated 16-3-1944, in favour of one Shripatrao predecessor in inte; eat of Khemraj from whom the pltf. derives title by purchase. The claim of the Municipality is apparently based upon a 'Khasra' (plan) drawn up in 1910 A. D., of land in which the land under the 'otta' is shown as vacant 'Banjar'. A plea of limitation was also set up. The lower appellate Ct. found that the 'otta' in dispute existed since about 30 years prior to the suit but the Municipality had demolished it and it was reconstructed without the permission of the Municipality. It is, therefore, clear that long possession of the 'otta' by the pltf's. predecessor, and therefore, of the land under it has been established beyond doubt. Under S. 110, Evidence Act, this would constitute prima facie proof of title and the burden would shift on the other side to displace that presumption. This presumption avails even against the Govt. See Govind Rupchand v, Secy, of State, A. I. R. (22) 1935 Nag. 163 : (31 n. l. R. 232), Hanmantrav v. Secy, of State, 25 Bom 287 : (2 Bom. l. R. 1111), Krishna Aiyar v. Secy, of State, 33 Mad. 173 : (5 I. C 121). It, therefore, remains to be seen whether there is any proof of title in the Muncipality. The 'khasra' it has been held is not a conclusive evidence-vide 18 Indore Law Rep. 117, and no title can be based upon it. The plan of the site Ex. C/1, which was produced in this Ct. by Mrs. Gandhe, for the applt. explains in detail the plan already on record and, negatives the claim of the Municipality. The 'khasra' it has been held is not a conclusive evidence-vide 18 Indore Law Rep. 117, and no title can be based upon it. The plan of the site Ex. C/1, which was produced in this Ct. by Mrs. Gandhe, for the applt. explains in detail the plan already on record and, negatives the claim of the Municipality. It will appear from the plan that on the west aide of the 'otta' in dispute there is a built house which extends to the southern end of the 'otta'. On the north is open land belonging to one Tanibai and it appears that there was dispute regarding the open land to the east which it is admitted was decided in favour of Tanibai some years ago. At the south of the 'otta' there is a drain tunning along the built house, the 'otta' and open land belonging to Tanibai and thereafter is the street. It is in evidence that access to the pltf's house can be had only over the 'otta'. This situation makes the claim of the deft, prima, facie untenable and pltf's. possessory title must prevail. The learned Dist. J., has based his decision on an inference that all the land belongs to the State and a person claiming it by possession must prove such possession to be adverse for minimum period of 60 years. This argument overlooks the presumption under S. 110, Evidence Act, and although in theory the State is the overlord in respect of land, a person can hare rights of ownership and it is only when there is ownerless land that the provisions of S. 36, Municipal Act, are attracted. Questions of adverse possession arise only when ownership is proved and in absence of proof of title in the Municipality the question of adverse possession is irrelevant, in the present case. The appeal is accepted and the pltf's. claim decreed with costs throughout.