This second appeal is by the plaintiff. The plaintiff lost in both the Courts below. 2. The suit was filed under Order 21 Rule 103 CPC prior to amend­ment. The plaintiff's case is that his grand father orally gifted him the land with delivery of possession and he used to reside thereon as the absolute owner. The plaintiff further stated that the parties are governed by Muslim law and as such gift by delivery of possession was in accordance with law. According to the plaintiff, the defendant No.l collusively filed a Title Suit against the defendant Nos.2 and 3, and while executing the decree being Title Execution No.56/72. he was dispossessed and hence the suit. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant Nos. 1, 4 to 7. According to the defendant No.l, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 agreed to sell their possessory right to her and as they refused she filed the above Title Suit and got a decree, and through execution of the decree she also got possession. Before the executing Court the present plaintiff-appellant filed petition, which was dismissed and (hereafter possession was delivered to the defendant No.l. 4. Mr. S'ngh, learned counsel for the appellant, has urged that as the suit was under Order 21 Rule 103 CPC, the learned lower appellate Court erred in law in dismissing the appeal and consequently the suit, inasmuch as the Court held that the plaintiff appellant was in possession of the suit land. According to the learned counsel, it is not necessary for the plaintiff appellant to prove his title. 5. Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the respondent, has urged that as the plaintiff appellant could not prove his title, the suit was rightly dismissed by the learned Court below. 6. From the impugned judgment, I find that in the execution proceeding, the plaintiff filed a petition which was registered as Misc. Case No. 15/73 and the petition was ultimately dismissed. The fate of the present appeal will depend on the interpretation of Rule 103 of Order 21 CPC (unamended). 6. From the impugned judgment, I find that in the execution proceeding, the plaintiff filed a petition which was registered as Misc. Case No. 15/73 and the petition was ultimately dismissed. The fate of the present appeal will depend on the interpretation of Rule 103 of Order 21 CPC (unamended). The said Rule runs as follows : "103 Orders conclusive subject to regular suit-Any party not being a judgment-debtor against whom an order is made under Rule 98, Rule 99, or Rule 101 may institute a suit to establish the right which he claims to the present possession of the property, but, subject to the result of suit (if any), the order shall be conclusive." (emphasis supplied) 7. On a plain reading of this Order, the intention of the legislature is clear that in a suit under the above Rule the plaintiff has to establish his right of the claim under which he was in possession of the property. In other words, the plaintiff has to prove his title. In fact, possession prior to filing of the suit is not material. 8. This matter was considered by the Madras High Court in Kalesw-arar Mills vs. A.P. Govindaswami. AIR 1946 Madras 76 in which a Divisi­on Bench of the Court held that the scope of a suit under Order 21 Rule 103 is not the determination of the mere question of possession of the parties concerned hut the establishment of the right or title by which the plaintiff claims the present possession of the property. This view was taken by following the earlier decision of the said High Court. 9. In Jitendra Natb Mondal vs. Nandalal Dass, AIR 1947 Calcutta 434, a Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court, inter alia, held that the scope of the suit under Rule 103 is much wider as it is a suit based on the right to possession and not on mere possession at the relevant date. It was further held that the plaintiff cannot succeed by merely showing that he was in possession and had been dispossessed but he must establish his right to possession on the assumption that he was not in possession on the date of the order under Rule 98.99 or 101. 10. It was further held that the plaintiff cannot succeed by merely showing that he was in possession and had been dispossessed but he must establish his right to possession on the assumption that he was not in possession on the date of the order under Rule 98.99 or 101. 10. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed by the Madras and Calcutta High Courts and hold that in a suit under Order 21 Rule 103, the plaintiff must prove his title. In the case in hand, the plaintiff has failed to prove his title and therefore the suit was rightly dismissed by the learned Court below. T may mention that no other decision holding contrary view has been placed before me at the bar Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, his placed reliance on Dbian Chand vs. Parkash Kaur, AIR 1978 Punjab and Haryana 221. I have perused the judgment, and in my opinion this decision is not relevant for the present purpose as it was rendered in connection with Rule 98 and 99 of Order 21 CPC in respect of execution proceeding. The scope of Rule 103 was not discussed in the said decision. 11. In the result, I find no merit in the present appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.