Judgment :- 1. Plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for recovery of possession of the suit property on the strength of his title. The Munsiff dismissed the suit holding that the oral assignment relied on by the plaintiff is not capable of transferring any valid title to him This has been confirmed by the District Judge. 2. The Munsiff held that the oral assignment of the property pleaded by the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 100/- hardly constitutes a valid transaction and it is incapable of transferring any valid title to him. It was also held that the defendant has no consistent case of possession and at any rate his evidence is totally unacceptable. Munsiff accepted the case of the plaintiff that the defendant trespassed into the property in October 1975. Counsel for the plaintiff 'submitted that the Munsiff having held so ought to have decreed the suit at least on the basis of the possessory title of the plaintiff. 3. The question to be considered is whether is a case where a plaintiff sets up proprietary title and having failed to prove it, can be advance a case on the strength of his possessory title. The Munsiff on a consideration of the evidence held that the defendant has no consistent case of possession and bis evidence is opposed to his very pleadings. The plea of adverse possession set up by the defendant was held not established. In view of the finding by the trial Court that defendant is in possession of the property only from October 1975 onwards and that be has trespassed upon the property the only inference possible is that the plaintiff has established his possessory title. Payment of revenue by the plaintiff as evidenced by Ext. A2 lends considerable strength to the case of the plaintiff regarding his possession of the property. As the suit was filed in 1976 closely after the trespass plea of adverse possession is well nigh impossible. 4. In the above context we have to consider whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the property from the defendant on the strength of his possessory title. Possession even without valid title is a substantive right which has been recognised by law. Such possession has legal incidents attached to it apart from ownership. A person can always protect his possessory title from invasion by trespassers. Possession even without valid title is a substantive right which has been recognised by law. Such possession has legal incidents attached to it apart from ownership. A person can always protect his possessory title from invasion by trespassers. A person having possessory title can enforce that limited right against all persons except those who have a better title or a better right than himself. Where a person in possession but having no proprietary title is ejected from his property he can definitely sue for recovery of possession on the strength of his possessory title. The principle underlying the rule that possession is a good title against all except the person who can show a better title is stated in Narayana Row v. Dharmachar (ILR. 26 Madras 514) thus: "The principle underlying the rule of law in question seems to be that acquisition of title by operation of the law of limitation being a lawful mode of acquiring title, the person in peaceable possession is entitled to maintain such possession against all but the true owner and that therefore a third party who has no better title than the person in possession has no right to invade upon the possession of the latter and interrupt or arrest his lawful acquisition of title by his continuing to remain in, possession for the statutory period. It is the true owner alone that is entitled to assert his title as against the person wrongfully in possession, and prevent such wrongful possession ripening into prescriptive title But a third party who without deriving title under the true owner and without his authority, interrupts such possession before it has ripened into prescriptive title, is a trespasser, not only against the true owner, but also against the party actually in possession; and. subject to the law of limitation, either of them is entitled to maintain a suit in ejectment against such intruder as a trespasser." 5. The Court can always protect the possessory right of a person except against the true owner unless the remedy of the latter is barred by limitation. In a case where a plaintiff failed to prove his proprietary title but has proved his prior possession be is entitled to a decree for recovery of possession the moment it is found that the defendant is a trespasser. It will not be necessary for the plaintiff to establish bis possession for the statutory period. In a case where a plaintiff failed to prove his proprietary title but has proved his prior possession be is entitled to a decree for recovery of possession the moment it is found that the defendant is a trespasser. It will not be necessary for the plaintiff to establish bis possession for the statutory period. In AIR. 1924 Patna 709 (Akal Ahir v. Baijnath Das) it has been held that a person in possession of the land even without title thereto could not be successfully turned out by another person who also had no title. The Patna High Court held as follows: "There is abundant authority for the proposition that if a person is in possession of land even without title thereto he cannot be successfully turned put by another person who also had no title, and if such a thing should happen the person first in possession is entitled to be put again in possession even if be should fail to prove that be had a title to the land". Thus, the position is that as between two persons who are unable to make out a valid title the person who was having possession prior to the dispossession is really entitled to have the property restored to him from the trespasser. The settled legal position is that a trespasser does not have any right whatever to dispossess a person is possession. A trespasser cannot take the stand that the person whom he had thrown out from the property had no proprietary title and consequently the least concerned with any other interest in the property. As possession is good title against all but the true owner and as a person in peaceful possession of land has, as against every one but the true owner, an interest capable of being inherited, devised or conveyed, the importance of possessory title cannot be ignored. 6. In K. C. Alexander v. Nair Service Society Ltd. (AIR. 1966 Kerala 286) the Court observed thus: "Possession by itself confers title against all but the true owner; hence an earlier possessor has a prior, and, therefore, a better title than a later possessor and is entitled unless his title has been extinguished by limitation, to recover not merely from the trespasser who dispossessed him but from any subsequent trespasser. 1966 Kerala 286) the Court observed thus: "Possession by itself confers title against all but the true owner; hence an earlier possessor has a prior, and, therefore, a better title than a later possessor and is entitled unless his title has been extinguished by limitation, to recover not merely from the trespasser who dispossessed him but from any subsequent trespasser. Just as a true owner who is dispossessed can, within the period limited by law, institute a suit for possession against the person in possession notwithstanding that the latter is not the immediate but only a subsequent intruder, irrespective of the number or nature of the intervening adverse possessory titles, so can a possessory owner do so against all but the true owner It. Thus the irrefutable position is that a person in possession of land can on the strength of his possessory title sue for recovery of possession of the property from a trespasser. 7. Though the plaintiff has not succeeded in establishing his legal title as it is based on oral assignment there is evidence regarding his possessory title in the property and therefore on the strength of it he is entitled to recover the property from the defendant, It is accordingly found that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the property from the defendant. The Munsiff in Para.24 of the judgment held that considering the extent of the property the claim of mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 50/- per annum is not excessive. Hence the plaintiff is allowed mesne profits as claimed by him. Concurrent findings of the courts below are hereby set aside and the suit is decreed in terms of the plaint with Rs. 50/- per annum as mesne profits. The Second Appeal stands allowed. There is no order as to costs. Allowed.