N. D. VENKATESH, J. ( 1 ) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-9-1978 of the Civil Judge, Chick- ballapur, in R. A. No. 73 of 1978 on his file. The said R. A. , had been preferred by these appellants, who were defendants in O. S. No. 1772 on the file of the Munsiff, Chiikballpur, against the judgment and decree dated 14-2-1978 of the Munsiff in that suit. The respondent herein was the plaintiff in the said suit. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff's claim in the suit was for a permanent injunction against these defendants restraining them from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit land The trial court ganted a decree as sought for. The first appellate court has confirmed "the same. ( 3 ) A few facts which are not in dispute may be stated. Sy. Nos. 107 and 106, adjoining each other, of village honnenahalli, Chickballapur Tk, originally belonged to the joint family of three coparceners - brothers, Dodda subbiah, Nadipi Subbiah and Chikka subbiah. Sy. No. 107 measures 25 guntas and Sy. No. 106, 9 guntas, the total being 34 guntas. This block of land spearing length-wise north to south, came to be divided amongst the three brothers into three portions. The northern most portion fell to the share of the youngest, Chikka Subbiah and the southern portion fell to the share of the eldest, Dodda Subbiah and the middle portion fell to the share of nadipi Subbiah. In this connection we have a registered partition deed of the year 1958. The plaintiff has purchased on 2-1-1971 Chikka Subbiah's share and the 4th defendant has purchased on 14-2-1971 the shares of the other two brothers. These transactions are evidenced by registered sale-deeds. After the sale-deed dated 2-1-1971 the plaintiff has also obtained a rectification deed on 10-2-1971 in view of the fact that in the original sale-deed survey numbers had not been correctly mentioned. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff claims that after he purchased the, share of Chikka Subbiah, he had got thq land surveyed and measured officially. According to him, since he was found to be in possession, and enjoyment of 14 guntas of land, boundary stones were fixed accordingly and a new number Sy. No. 1072 was given to that land. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff claims that after he purchased the, share of Chikka Subbiah, he had got thq land surveyed and measured officially. According to him, since he was found to be in possession, and enjoyment of 14 guntas of land, boundary stones were fixed accordingly and a new number Sy. No. 1072 was given to that land. His case in the plaint was that the defendants were trying to interfere with his possession, and enjoyment of this land and they should be restrained from doing so. ( 5 ) THE contention of the 4th defendant was that the three. brothers had divided the lands into three equal shares each getting 11-13 guntas and the land that was in possession of Chikka Subbiah was only 11-13 guntas and not 14 guntas as claimed by the plaintiff. According to him he is in possession of the remaining portion compr sing shares of the two brothers and the plaintiff has absolutely no right, title, or interest over any portion of the land in excess of of the northern most 11-13 guntas in sy. No. 107 (Original ). He further pleaded that he was not bound by the surveyor's measurement and in a separate proceeding has been challenging the same. ( 6 ) THE only question that fell for consideration before the Munsiff was as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction against the defendants in respect of a strip of 2-23 guntas of land lying on the southern side adjoining Nadipi Subbiah's share. On plaintiff's side eight witnesses were examined and the 4th defendant examined seven witnesses. 62 documents were marked for the plaintiff and 33 for the defendant. ( 7 ) HAVING come to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence, let in before him, that the plaintiff had come into possession of 14 guntas of land, including 2-2 3 gs referred to above, under the sale-deed he had obtained from Chikka Subbiah, the Munsiff conceded his claim for an injunction reserving 4th defendant's right to recover possession of the said 2-23 guntas of land after establishing his better title in any appropriate proceeding he may deem fit to take. This finding, as stated above, has been confirmed by the Civil Judge. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants made these submissions. This finding, as stated above, has been confirmed by the Civil Judge. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants made these submissions. That the plaintiff-respondent was not in possession of 2 23 guntas of land referred, to above; that, assuming that he has been able to establish possession re this strip of land, even then he was not entitled to any injunction against the 4th defendant in view of the fact that the evidence on record clearly establishes the title of the 4th defendant to this sirip of 2-23 gs; that- the courts below have grossly erred in. holding that the plaintiff was in lawful possession of the said strip of land, and in granting the injunction sought for by him on that footing; that in a case like this ther courts below should have proceeded to investigate as to who between these two, the plaintiff and the 4th defendant, had better title to th's strip of land and then decided the plaintiff's claim for injunction; and; that his client undoubtedly has better title and the courts below were bound to take note of this fact and refused the reliefs sought for by the plaintiff . The grave error committed by both the courts below, according to the learned Counsel, was in not examining the case of title or ownership of the, parties involved which they, the courts below, were bound to do so in a case like this. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the respondent the concurrent findings of the courts below that his client was in lawful possession of the property-2-23 guntas of land - is not liable to be challenged in this second appeal. He argues that in a case like this it was not necessary for courts to have considered the question of title. If the 4th defendant has a better title, he argues, nothing provents him from establishing the same and recovering possession of this strip of land from his client. ( 10 ) BOTH the courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff has been in possession of 2-23 gs. of land, referred, to above. This finding, based as it is on facts, is not liable to be disturbed. ( 11 ) A trespasser or a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to be protected against a lawful owner by an order of injunction. of land, referred, to above. This finding, based as it is on facts, is not liable to be disturbed. ( 11 ) A trespasser or a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to be protected against a lawful owner by an order of injunction. In this connection, i am in respectful agreement with the following views expressed by Veeraswami, (as he then was) in, Alaqi alamtu Aghi. v. Ponniah Muddaliar (1) The question in the present suit is not whether the first defendant has a subsisting title. Once the lower appellate Court found, that the plaintiff's possession is wrong protection by an injunction, because ful, it immediately followed that such possession is not entitled to such an order will be only assisting the plaintiffs in their wrongful possession. No court can by its own. order help a party who is found to be in wrongful possession as against the lawful owner. The fact that if the lawful owner were to institute a suit, he might possibly fail on the ground that he was not in possession within 12 years of suit, could make no difference and that cannot, in my opinion, be a proper justification for the issue of an iniunction virtually maintaining or advancing the wrongful act of the plaintiffs. I hold, therefore, that the lower appellate court went wrong in granting an injunction against the first defendant. " ( 12 ) THE only question th,at falls for our consideration is whether the courts below have erred in holding that the plaintiff was in lawful possession of the property and as such was entitled to an injunction against the 4th defendant and his people. ( 13 ) IN the course of his argument the learned Counsel for the appellants went to the extent of making a submission that the respondent had conceded in his very pleading that he was in unauthorised occupation and and as such was not entitled to an injunction. In this connection he drew my attention to certain passages in the amend plaint. In this connection he drew my attention to certain passages in the amend plaint. What is stated by the plaintiff therein is that the three brothers, after partitioning the properties in equal shares as per the registered partition deed referred to above, had proceeded to actually demarcate their respective portions; that at that time it was noticed that in the 13rd area that had fallen to the share of Chikka Subbiah there was a bit dilapidated well and since that place and the surroundings were not fit for cultivation he, Chikka subbiah, in order to compensate for this, had extended the southern boundary a little more than what had been shown in the partition deed and had covered the same with a ridge, a wire fence with stone slabs etc; and that since then he was in possession and enjoyment of that entire area now shown in the plaint sketch. It is also further stated that he and his predecessor in title having been in possession of that area since a long time, can be said to have acquired title by adverse possession and that whatever rights Nadipi Subbiah may have had over this strip he, Nadipi Subbiah, had lost. ( 14 ) MERELY because the plaintiff has pleaded alternatively acquisition of title by adverse possession, it cannot be said that his very case in the; plaint was that he was in unauthorised occupation or was enjoying the property as a trespasser. ( 15 ) IT is thus clear that the plaintiff's case is that immediately after executing the partition deed, each taking 13rd out of these two survey numbers, they, the brothers, had gone to the spot in order to demarcate the portions and that at that time and for the reasons mentioned above, Chikka Subbiah had extended the southern boundary by a little and had taken possession of that area and that this had been acquiesced in by his two other brothers and, in particular, by Nadipi Subbiah. That is his main case. ( 16 ) WHILE denying the above claim the counsel for the appellant further submitted as already stated, that even if the plaintiff is found to be in possession of this small strip of 2-23 guntas in contraversy he was not entitled to any injunction in his favour having not been able to establish that his possession was lawful. ( 16 ) WHILE denying the above claim the counsel for the appellant further submitted as already stated, that even if the plaintiff is found to be in possession of this small strip of 2-23 guntas in contraversy he was not entitled to any injunction in his favour having not been able to establish that his possession was lawful. He argued that in a case like this the plaintiff could establish the lawful nature of his possession only by establishing his title to the land. If the trial court had directed its attention to this aspect, he argued it would have found that the plaintiff was not the owner of this area and consequently, holding that he was not in lawful possession, would have rejected his claim for injunction. ( 17 ) WAS it necessary for the courts below to have gone into the question of title at all? The trial court could have considered the question of title if, in case, the plaintff had sought for a declaration of his title or at least, if the 4th defendant had started a separate proceeding claiming his title. Neither of them have chosen to do so the finding of the trial court on the question of possession was that the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-interest have been in possession of thin 2-23 guntas of land since a consider able period of time. That, in my view, was sufficient for the trial court to presume that the plaintiff was in lawful possession. In a case like this it was for the defendant to rebut this presumption. In this connection the following observations of Venkataramaiah, J. , (as he then was) in S. Krishnamurthy vs. P. Ratnam (2) may be noted:"it is a well settled principle of law that a person in possession of a property can maintain a suit for injunction against the whole worlds except the true owner. Unless the defendants are able to show that they have a better title to the suit property, the plaintiff in possession, of the same 5s entitled to a decree for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession". Unless the defendants are able to show that they have a better title to the suit property, the plaintiff in possession, of the same 5s entitled to a decree for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession". It is true that in Krishnamurthy's case (Supra) the land involved was an mam land and; that under the, Inams Abolition Act applicable to that land the same had vested in the State Government and the parties to that proceeding were rival claimants for occupancy rights. Neither was in a position to say that he had title to the land when the suit was pending, Even then the ratio enunciated by the learned judge applies to a case like this also. In the instant case the plaintiff, claiming to be in lawful possession of the land, claims an injunction against the 4th defendant and his people. The 4th defendant, not conceding the plaintiff's possesston over this strip of land, certainly had no occasion even to raise the contention that the plaintiff was in such possession as a trespasser or unauthorisedly or had stealthily grabbed possession. He has not taken any steps against the plaintiff to establish his better title over this landi. Examination of the rival claims to title of the contesting parties in respect of this strip of land was, in the circumstances, beyond the scope of this proceeding and it was also not necesary, as already stated. If a party has proved that he was in possession of a piece of land over a considerable perod peasefully enjoying the same the inference is that he has been in lawful possession. As observed in Dia's Jurisprudence, 2nd Ed. (at page 332) "possession carries with it a right to remain in possession until some one else establishes a superior title". In the context of the case on hand such possession has to be understood as peaceful. quiet, and undsturbed possession and enjoyment for over a considerable period. Since the courts below have concurrently held that such possession vests with the plaintiff, their finding that he is entitled to the injunction sought for is not liable to be disturbed. ( 18 ) THEREFORE, confirming the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, this appeal is dismissed. However, partie are directed to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .