JUDGMENT Honble Pankaj Mithal, J.—These four appeals arise out of separate suits based on similar and identical facts and were clubbed and are being taken up together. 2. The plaintiff/appellants who claim to be in possession of constructions and the land in dispute were served with notices to remove their constructions from the said land failing which a first information report would be lodged against them. Accordingly, they instituted separate suits being Original Suits No. 54 of 2000, 43 of 2000, 55 of 2000 and 53 of 2000 against the defendant/respondents for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondents not to disturb their possession and to demolish their constructions alleging that the defendants/respondents have no concern with the land the constructions in dispute and that the plaintiff and and their predecessors in interest are continuing in possession of the land since time immemorial and have constructed their houses over the same. 3. The defendants/respondents contested the suit alleging that the houses of the plaintiff/appellants are situate on the part of Khasra No. 1341 area 3.780 hectare and Khasra No. 1342 area 1.319 hectare which is land of the State Government and, as such, they are not entitle for any decree as prayed for. 4. The Court of first instant dismissed the suits which judgments and orders have also been upheld in appeal by the lower appellate Court. Therefore, the plaintiff/appellants have preferred these second appeals. 5. I have heard Sri K.K. Dubey and Sri D.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellants and Sri A.L.Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the defendant/respondents on the following common substantial question of law which arises in all these appeals and with their consent proceed to decide the appeal finally at the stage of admission : 6. Whether despite the findings of the courts below that the plaintiffs have constructed houses on the land in dispute and are in actual possession of the same, the decree for permanent injunction could have been refused to them as admittedly no proceeding under law either for their eviction or for recovery of possession over the land in dispute have been initiated? 7. I have perused the judgment and orders of the Courts below. The Court of first instance has categorically recorded a finding of fact that all the plaintiff/appellants are in possession of their respective houses in dispute which they have constructed on the land in dispute. 7. I have perused the judgment and orders of the Courts below. The Court of first instance has categorically recorded a finding of fact that all the plaintiff/appellants are in possession of their respective houses in dispute which they have constructed on the land in dispute. The relevant part of the finding in this regard which is identical in all cases is reproduced herein below : "i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ls lkfcr gS fd fookfnr edku ij oknh dk dCtk gS ftldks izfroknh }kjk] Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS vkSj ;g dgk fd oknh us izfroknh tu dh tehu ij utk;t dCtk djds edku dk fuekZ.k fd;k gSA" 8. However, as the plaintiff/appellants failed to prove that their houses are situate on a land other than part of Khasra No. 1341 and 1342 the suit was dismissed. The appellate Court in a casual and routine manner upheld the judgment and orders of the Court below but the finding with regard to the possession was not touched at all. At the same time, the appellate Court recorded that from the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs it is established that they are in possession of the houses which stands on the aforesaid land. 9. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that once the plaintiff/appellants have been found to be in possession they are not liable to be evicted, otherwise than following the due process of law. The said argument has been opposed by the learned Standing Counsel on the ground that the plaintiff/appellants are not entitle to a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant/respondents who are true owners. It is not in dispute that the defendant/respondents have not initiated any proceeding against the plaintiff/appellants for their eviction or for recovery of their possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act or under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. No further steps in pursuance of the notice alleged to have been issued have also been taken. Therefore, once it is found by the Courts below that the plaintiff/appellants are in settled possession of the house which have been constructed by them or their predecessor-in-interest on the land in dispute they are not liable to be thrown out of the same by use of force, except by recourse to law. 10. In Krishna Ram Mahale (Dead) by His LRs. v. Mrs. 10. In Krishna Ram Mahale (Dead) by His LRs. v. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao, (1989) 4 SCC 131 , the Apex Court relying upon AIR 1968 SC 620 , Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh has clearly observed that it is well settled law in this country that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law. The above legal position was accepted in another decision by the Supreme Court in (1977) 1 SCC 188 , Ram Rattan v. State of U.P. 11. It may not be out of context to mention that a true owner has every right to stop or throw out a trespasser from taking unlawful possession provided he is in process of trace passing but this right to throw out the trespasser is not available to the true owner if the trespasser is successful in taking the possession of the property to the knowledge of the true owner. Once he succeeds in obtaining the possession the remedy available to the true owner is by bringing a suit for his eviction or for recovery of possession. 12. Even Privy Council as far back as in the year 1924 in the case of Midnapur Zamindary Company Limited v. Naresh Narayan Roy in 51 Indian Appeals 293 : AIR 1924 PC 144 has observed as under : “In India persons are not permitted to take forcible possession; they must obtain such possession as they are entitled to through a Court.” 13. In other words, the defendant/respondents are not supposed to dispossess the plaintiff/appellants from the property in dispute or to disturb their possession without recourse to law. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff/appellants are certainly entitle to a decree of permanent injunction which the Courts below have illegally refused despite finding them to be in settled possession. 14. The above position of law with regard to possessory title has recently been followed by the Supreme Court in 2008 (II) 2 R.J. 1256, Subramaniaswamy Temple, Ratnagiri v. V. Kanna Gounder (Dead) by LRs. by quoting paragraphs 8 and 9 of the earlier decision in Rame Gowda (D) by Lrs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs. 14. The above position of law with regard to possessory title has recently been followed by the Supreme Court in 2008 (II) 2 R.J. 1256, Subramaniaswamy Temple, Ratnagiri v. V. Kanna Gounder (Dead) by LRs. by quoting paragraphs 8 and 9 of the earlier decision in Rame Gowda (D) by Lrs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs. and another, 2004(1) SCC 769 which paragraphs are reproduced herein below : “8. It is thus clear that so far as the Indian law is concerned, the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such possession he may even use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser. A rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do so peacefully and without the use of unreasonable force. If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightly owner shall have to take recourse to law; he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with his possession. The law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a rightful owner from using force or taking the law in his own hands, and also by restoring him in possession even from the rightful owner (of course subject to the law of limitation), if the latter has dispossessed the prior possessor by use of force. In the absence of proof of better title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title. Law presumes the possession to go with the title unless rebutted. The owner of any property may prevent even by using reasonable force a trespasser from an attempted trespass, when it is in the process of being committed, or is of a flimsy character, or recurring, intermittent, stray or casual in nature, or has just been committed, while the rightful owner did not have enough time to have recourse to law. In the last of the cases, the possession of the trespasser, just entered into would not be called as one acquiesced to by the true owner. 9. It is the settled possession or effective possession of a person without title which would entitle him to protect his possession even as against the true owner. In the last of the cases, the possession of the trespasser, just entered into would not be called as one acquiesced to by the true owner. 9. It is the settled possession or effective possession of a person without title which would entitle him to protect his possession even as against the true owner. The concept of settled possession and the right of the possessor to protect his possession against the owner has come to be settled by a catena of decisions.” 15. Thus, in view of above legal position, the question of law involved in these appeals is answered in favour of the plaintiff/appellants and it is held that they are entitle to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondents from dispossessing them or interfering with their use and occupation of the suit property, otherwise than adopting the due process of law. 16. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment and orders dated 11.10.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Lalitpur in Civil Appeals No. 6 of 2007, (Ram Ratan v. Khand Vikas Adhikari and others), 5 of 2007 (Turav Ali v. Khand Vikas Adhikari and others), 2 of 2007, (Veer Singh v. Khand Vikas Adhikari and others) and 7 of 2007, (Vijay Bhan v. Khand Vikas Adhikari and others) and dated 16.12.2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Lalitpur in Original Suit No. 54 of 2000, (Ram Ratan v. Khand Vikas Adhikari and others), 43 of 2000, (Turav Ali v. Khand Vikas Adhikari and others), 55 of 2000, (Veer Singh v. Khand Vikas Adhikari and others) and 53 of 2000 (Vijay Bhan v. Khand Vikas Adhikari and others) are set aside and the suits of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction is decreed and the defendants are restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff/appellants from the suit property or interfering with their possession thereon. However, it shall be open for the defendants to initiate appropriate proceedings for the eviction of the plaintiffs or for recovery of possession of the suit land from them as may be available to them under law. ————