N. D. VENKATESH, J. ( 1 ) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal. The plaintiff is a temple. On its behalf OS no. 75/1 of 1971 on the file of the Munsiff, humnabad was filed against the defendants (respondents herein) claiming an injunction against them restraining them from interfering with its possession and enjoyment of the plaint house, of which it claims to be the owner in possession. The defendants resisted the suit. They denied both the ownership and possession of the plaintiff re. the house in question, and claimed that they were owners and in possession of the same. They also denied the right of the person, who had brought the suit on behalf of the plaintiff, to bring that suit. The trial Court framed the following five issues :"1. Whether the suit filed by Vithal rao Appa Rao is maintainable ? 2 ). Whether the plaintiff proves- his possession of the suit house on the date of suit ? 3 ). Does he further prove the alleged obstruction by the defendants ? 3. Is plaintiff entitled to reliefs sought ? after receiving the evidence placed by the parties that Court answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and granted a decree as sought for. In the appeal, preferred by the defendants, the Civil judge, Bidar, by his judgment dated 29-3 1975 in RA No. 54 of 1974, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit and, therefore, the plaintiff has come up with this second appeal. ( 2 ) THOUGH this is a suit for injunction, incidentally, the question of ownership also is required to be taken note of. In para 4 of their written statement, while trying to explain how the katha of this property might have been brought on record of the Village Panchayat in the name of the temple, this is what the defendants say, and that statement has some value in appreciating their evidence that they are in possession of the property which fact is the moot point in this suit for injunction. "as stated above the suit house belongs to the defendants and the defendants, who reside in Chitguppa proper always and they often used to go to village halikhad and visit the suit bouse occasionally. Therefore, having seen the absence of the defendants in the village halikhad, the plaintiff institution alleged worshipper. . . . . . . . "as stated above the suit house belongs to the defendants and the defendants, who reside in Chitguppa proper always and they often used to go to village halikhad and visit the suit bouse occasionally. Therefore, having seen the absence of the defendants in the village halikhad, the plaintiff institution alleged worshipper. . . . . . . . has managed to get some record prepared with the collusion of the Panchayat behind the back of the defendants". Three things emanate from this statement viz. , (i) that the defendants do not reside in the village where the house in question is situated ; (ii) that they only visit the village, where the suit house is situated, on occasions ; and (iii) that they occasionally visit the suit house. These things will have to be borne in mind while examining the rival contentions concerning the question of possession. ( 3 ) THE learned Munsiff has considered the evidence adduced by the parties re. the possession of the suit house at paras 14 and 15 of his judgment. The 1st defendant had asserted that the house was his ancestral property. The defendants wanted to show about their having paid assessment for the house. The Munsiff, after examining one or two tax receipts of recent years, came to the conclusion that they do not specifically show that the assessment had been paid by them in respect of this house. In this connection he also took note of the fact of their having one or two other houses in the village. Having examined carefully the evidence let in, he was of the view that the plaintiff- temple had established that it was in possession of the suit house. ( 4 ) ON a re-appraisal of the evidence the learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the suit house was in a very dilapidated condition and a portion of that had a zink -sheet roof. He was not satisfied with the evidence adduced by either side on the question of possession and, therefore, in the end of para 13 he observes as follows :"the oral evidence could be led on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendants. Oral evidence is not so much worthy of belief than that of the documentary proof which could have been produced as they are available. Oral evidence is not so much worthy of belief than that of the documentary proof which could have been produced as they are available. When the material documentary evidence is not coming before the Court, it has to be inferred that the plaintiff has not produced them purposely and he is suppressing the material piece of evidence from bringing to the notice of the Court". Then, touching the oral evidence of the defendants in support of their case that they were in possession of the suit house and the open space, the Civil Judge states as follows at para 15 :"coming to the evidence led on behalf of the defendants, as has been mentioned above by me, the defendants' evidence is not helpful because we are not going to decide the defendants' right in this case. Even though the defendants have taken the contention that the suit house is of their ownership, the ownership is not there, as a result of which detailed discussion of these witnesses are not necessary". The Civil Judge non suited the plaintiff for the reason that the plaintiff had not been able to establish that it was in session of the house. As can be seen from what is extracted above he does not hold that the defendants were in possession or they had been able to establish their possession. ( 5 ) IN a case like this what should be the inference ? Parties, in whose favour is a prima facie title, will have to win, though this is not a suit claiming any declaration of title. It is on record that the temple's name is shown as the kathedar in respect of this area in the village Panchayat records. This, in the circumstances, is prima facie evidence of its title. The presumption that possession goes with title apply to a case like this where neither party has been able to prove or establish possession, but one of the parties is able to show its title. The following observations of the Kerala High Court in Thiruvanchan sankaran v. Kunjipillai (1) may be noted :"the presumption that possession goes with title is not limited to particular kinds of cares where proof of actual possession is impossible on account of the nature of land such as boundary land forest land, or submerged land. The following observations of the Kerala High Court in Thiruvanchan sankaran v. Kunjipillai (1) may be noted :"the presumption that possession goes with title is not limited to particular kinds of cares where proof of actual possession is impossible on account of the nature of land such as boundary land forest land, or submerged land. The presumption applies to all kinds of land and where the plaintiff proves his title, but not any act of possession and the defendant did not prove possession except at some intervals within 12 years of suit, the presumption that possession follows title will come into play". I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid views. 'the learned Civil Judge, i may say. has misdirected himself on this important aspect of the case. His decision is liable to be ret aside. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, for the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the first appellate Court set aside and that of the Munsiff restored. No costs. --- *** --- .