Judgment :- 1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 306 of 1977 of the Munsiff Court, Palghat is the appellant. He filed the suit for a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. The Munsiff decreed the suit in terms of the plaint finding that the plaintiff has possession over the suit property. Defendants filed AS. No. 108 of 1980 before the Sub Court, Palghat. The Sub judge reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. 2. Plaintiff claims to have obtained possession of the property in 1976 as per Ext. Al from Janakikutty Amma who obtained it in execution proceedings in EP No. 98 of 1975 in OS. No. 530 of 1962 of the Munsiff Court, Palghat First defendant claims possession of the property as a tenant. He contended that he obtained leasehold rights in the property as per Ext. B1 from Asmikoya Thangal and that since then he is in possession of the property. 3. It is in evidence that in OS. No. 530 of 1962 Asmikoya Thangal's contentions were negatived. His appeal was also dismissed Ext. A4 is the judgment in SA. No 1256 of 1968. Plaintiff's assignor Janakikutty Amma tiled E.P. No. 98 of 1975 and took delivery of the property This is evidenced by Ext. A9. In that execution petition the present first defendant filed an execution application claiming tenancy right under Asmikoya Thangal as per Ext. Bl. The claim petition was dismissed and his appeal in the District Court was also dismissed. 4. Asmikoya Thangal had assigned the property to the 1st defendant as per Ext. BI while O.S. No. 530 of 1962 was pending. It is the definite case of the plaintiff that he obtained the property from Janakikutty Amma as per Ext. Al on 20-1-1976 and since then he is in possession of the property. 5. First defendant had filed O. S. N. 67 of 1975 for injunction against Janakikutty Amma. Janakikutty Amma had filed O.S. No. 36 of 1975 against the 1st defendant. As per Ext. A5 common judgment dated 30-6-1977 both the suits were dismissed. O. S. No. 36 of 1975 was dismissed finding that pending the suit Janakikutty Amma had transferred her rights to the present plaintiff. Janakikutty Amma had filed O.S. No. 36 of 1975 against the 1st defendant. As per Ext. A5 common judgment dated 30-6-1977 both the suits were dismissed. O. S. No. 36 of 1975 was dismissed finding that pending the suit Janakikutty Amma had transferred her rights to the present plaintiff. O. S. No. 67 of 1975 was dismissed as it was found that the 1st defendant did not prove his possession over the property. 6. First defendant filed A. S. No. 200 of 1977 against O. S. No. 67 of 1975. That appeal was dismissed. As already pointed out, in the execution proceedings in O. S. No. 530 of 19621st defendant's claim petition was dismissed and the appeal that followed met the same fate. Janakikutty Amma obtained possession of the property as per Ext. A2 delivery warrant in E. P. No. 98 of 1975 in O. S. No. 530 of 1962. In Ext. A5 judgment it has been clearly held that the present 1st defendant purchased the alleged verumpattom right of Asmikoya Thangal during the pendency of O.S. No. 530 of 1962 with the knowledge of the pending proceedings and that the assignment in his favour is bit by lis pendens. In view of Ext. A5 decision the defendants are debarred from raising the very same contentions again. In para 16 of the said judgment it has been held that the present 1st defendant is not in possession of the property as he was ousted therefrom in execution proceedings in O.S. No. 530 of 1962. There is no evidence at all to show that the 1st defendant or the other defendants got possession of the property after Janakikutty Amma had obtained it as per delivery warrant is E.P. No. 98 of 1975 in O.S. No. 530 of 1962. Defendants have no case that they obtained possession over the property at any time after Ext. A2. Exts. B2, B3 and B5 are prior to Ext. A2 and Ext. B4 is after the suit. Contention of the defendants that there is no evidence of possession of the plaintiff on the date of suit is not tenable in view of the overwhelming evidence that Janakikutty Amma had obtained delivery of the property as per Ext. A2 and that thereafter plaintiff obtained registered kanom assignment deed from her as per Ext. Al on 20-1-1976. 7. Contention of the defendants that there is no evidence of possession of the plaintiff on the date of suit is not tenable in view of the overwhelming evidence that Janakikutty Amma had obtained delivery of the property as per Ext. A2 and that thereafter plaintiff obtained registered kanom assignment deed from her as per Ext. Al on 20-1-1976. 7. As the defendants have no case that they got possession of the property at any time after Ext. A2 it is indeed difficult to accept their case that plaintiff has no possession in the property. In this context it is useful to refer to the decision in Ambika Prasad v. Ram Ekbal Rai (AIR 1966 SC 605) where it is held as follows: "If a thing or a state of things is shown to exist, an inference of its continuity within a reasonably proximate time both forwards and backwards may sometimes be drawn. The presumption of future continuance is noticed in illus. (d) to S.114. In appropriate cases, an inference of the continuity of a thing or state of things backwards may be drawn under this section, though on this point the section does not give a separate illustration. The rule that the presumption of continuance may operate retrospectively has been recognised both in India. This is rule of evidence by which one can presume the continuity of things backwards. The presumption of continuity weakens with the passage of time. How far the presumption may be drawn both backwards and forwards depends upon the nature of thing and the surrounding circumstances". 8. As there is unassailable evidence that plaintiff's predecessor obtained possession of the property as revealed by Ext. A2 the Sub Judge was completely wrong in not placing any reliance on it. In Kallappa Setty v. Lakshminarayana Rao (1973 (1) SC.J. 374) the Supreme Court observed as follows: "The plaintiff can on the strength of his possession resist interference from persons who have no better title than himself to the suit property. Once it was accepted that the plaintiff was in possession of the property ever since 1947 then his possession bad to be protected, as against interference by some one who was not proved to have a better title than himself to the suit property. Once it was accepted that the plaintiff was in possession of the property ever since 1947 then his possession bad to be protected, as against interference by some one who was not proved to have a better title than himself to the suit property. On the findings arrived at by the fact finding Courts as regards possession, even if the plaintiff had failed to prove his title satisfactorily, the plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from unlawfully and forcibly entering upon the suit site, and disturbing the plaintiff's possession and also from constructing a house by unlawfully obtaining a licence from the Municipality." As there is cogent evidence that Janakikutty Amma had obtained possession over the property as per Ext. A2 in a long drawn out civil litigation and as plaintiff obtained registered kanom assignment from her thereafter and as claim petition filed by the 1st defendant was rejected by the courts and as it has been conclusively found in O.S. No. 67 of 1975 that he has no possession over the suit property it has to be held that the trial court has perfectly justified in decreeing the suit. The Sub Judge grossly erred in following the appeal. The judgment and decree of the Sub Judge in A. S. No. 108 of 1980 are hereby set aside and that of the trial court are confirmed. The Second Appeal is allowed with costs throughout.