JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - Plaintiff is the Appellant against a reversing decision. Suit was filed for declaration of right, title' interest and possession over the disputed land. The trial court found that the Plaintiff was in possession since 1968. The trial court also found that though the property belonged to the State since the Defendants did not have any right there was no bar in declaring the right, title and in terest of the Plaintiff over the disputed land. 2. In the appeal filed by the Defendants, the appellate courheld that since the property belonged to the State Government the suit was not maintainable. The appellate court also held that the case of the Plaintiff that he was in possession since 1968 was not believable but the Plaintiff came into possession only since 1979. 3. At the time of entertaining the appeal the following substantial question of law was indicated ...The substantial question of law involved in the appeal which requires decision is whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of State of Orjssa as a party... 4. The Plaintiff has not claimed any relief against the State In the plaint there was no allegation that the possession of the Plaintiff was being interfered with by the State. On the other hand the only allegation was relating to the alleged. interference by the Defendants. In such view of the matter even though the Plaintiff was claiming right title and possession over the disputed property it cannot be said that the State was a necessary party. This position is now clear in view of the decision of this Court reported in Achut Kalsai and Another Vs. Madhu Kalsai, . 5. The lower appellate court also found that the Plaintiff was not in possession from 1968 as found by the trial court but was in possession only since 1979 and the Defendants were in possesion prior to 1979. 6. A person in possession of a property even without title has got right to protect such possession against the entire world excepting the tue owner. Even so far as the true owner is concerned he has to recover possession from a person in possession in accordance with law and not by forcible eviction A person even without title can recover possession from the true owner by taking recourse to Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Even so far as the true owner is concerned he has to recover possession from a person in possession in accordance with law and not by forcible eviction A person even without title can recover possession from the true owner by taking recourse to Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Even against persons other than true owner a person in possession can recover possession by filing suit in ordinary civil forum within twelve years from the date of dispossession as envisaged in ArtiCle 64 of Limitation Act. It goes without saying that a person in possession can resist attempt of interference relating to possession by every body including the true owner. This position is now well settled in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Nair Service Society Ltd. Vs. Rev. Father K.C. Alexander and Others, 7. In the present case it has been found that the Plaintiff was in possession since 1979 and the suit was filed in the year 1983 and the title of the Defendants has not been found.Therefore as observed by both the courts below the Plaintiff as well as the Defendants were mere trespassers. Since as per the finding of the court below the Defendants were in possession of the disputed land they could have recovered possession from the Plaintiff after they were dispossessed in the year 1979 as alleged by them. It is not known as to whether the Defendants have taken any steps to recover any such possession from the Plaintiff by filing any suit. However the fact remains that the Plaintiff has been found to be in possession. It goes without saying that such possession of the Plaintiff cannot be interfered by the Defendants without taking recourse to appropriate remedy available under law. Though the prayer for declaration of right title and interest Cannot be granted there is no embargo in passing an appropriate order relating to injunction against the Defendants. 8. In the result the Second Appeal is allowed and while confirming the possession of the Plaintiff it is made clear that the Defendants shall not forcibly interfere with the Possession of the Plaintiff without taking recourse to appropriate remedy available under the law. 8. In the result the Second Appeal is allowed and while confirming the possession of the Plaintiff it is made clear that the Defendants shall not forcibly interfere with the Possession of the Plaintiff without taking recourse to appropriate remedy available under the law. If any other suit has already been filed the same should be decided by the court in accordance with law and if a decree for recovery of possession is granted in such a suit the present decree would not stand on the way. 9. Subject to the aforesaid direction and observation the Second Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated. There will be no order as to costs. Second Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed