Judgment :- 1. The appellants are the plaintiffs whose suit for injunction to restrain the defendants from trespassing and taking forcible possession of the suit properties has been dismissed by both the courts below. 2. They claim right to the suit properties as successors of Kesava Kurup who was said to be the last surviving member of a branch to whom the properties had been allotted in tarwad partition. The defendants contended that the said deed was not one of partition but was only a maintenance allotment and as such the plaintiffs have not inherited the properties and are not entitled to any injunction as prayed for in the suit. The plaintiffs having applied for a temporary injunction along with the institution of the suit, a written objection thereto has been filed by the defendants in which they maintained that the plaintiffs had no right to be in possession of the suit properties and that by their possession they have only been trespassers thereon and could not therefore claim an injunction. This is an admission that the plaintiffs are in physical possession of the suit properties. 3. The learned Munsiff has however non-suited the plaintiffs, the reason being: "If the 1st defendant (karnavan) has allowed the plaintiffs to take the income, it is not possession sufficient to maintain a suit for injunction. Even granting that the plaintiffs have some sort of possession, they have absolutely no right to be in possession and their possession, if any, is wrongful possession. One seeking an injunction against trespassers on land must be not only in actual possession but also entitled to the possession. A trespasser is not entitled to claim that his possession must be maintained and protected by an injunction order. The plaintiffs cannot advance any right to possession. They have not even a bona fide claim. This is a suit filed in collusion with the 1st defendant as an attempt to establish some sort of right for the plaintiffs in the plaint properties. The plaintiffs are not entitled to the injunction prayed for". 4. This was affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge who observed: "The plaintiffs are therefore trespassers and they cannot sustain a suit for injunction" 5. The plaintiffs are not entitled to the injunction prayed for". 4. This was affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge who observed: "The plaintiffs are therefore trespassers and they cannot sustain a suit for injunction" 5. I am afraid that the courts below have proceeded on an erroneous view of law that a person in peaceable possession but having no title thereto is not entitled to an injunction to restrain others from disturbing his possession. S.9 of the Specific Relief Act clearly recognises a right of suit in a person in peaceful possession of immovable property to maintain his possession and if he is dispossessed without his consent otherwise than in due course of law, he can recover possession thereof by a suit brought within six months of his dispossession even though he may not be able to prove any title to the property. It is an established principle of our law that a person in possession of immovable property cannot be dispossessed by any other person unless that other person establishes his title thereto in due course of Law. It follows therefore that a person in peaceable possession is entitled to resist or ward off any attempt at disturbance of his possession by an injunction from the court. In this case there is not even a finding that the defendants are the rightful owners of the properties. The discussion of the learned Munsiff as to the nature of Ext. A, whether it amounts to an outright partition or only a maintenance allotment is irrelevant for purposes of this case, and the finding thereon is therefore vacated. To sustain a motion for injunction it is enough if the plaintiffs prove that they have been in peaceful possession of the property and that the defendants are attempting to oust them without recourse to law. The view of the courts below that the plaintiffs' possession is only that of trespassers and therefore they are not entitled to an injunction is clearly unsustainable. The decree of the courts below is therefore set aside and the suit remitted to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. 6. The Second Appeal succeeds. The appellants will have their costs. Allowed.