Suit:

Suit claiming possessory title – Based on settled possession for a number of years – Alleging that he was wrongfully dispossessed by defendants – No document to prove his possession – Defendants relied on two sale deeds (one executed by original owner to the predecessor-in-interest of defendant No.1 and another by predecessor-in-interest of defendant No.1 to defendant No.1) – Trial court decreed the suit – First appellate court dismissed the suit on the ground that the defendants had proved their title and possession over the suit property – High Court, in second appeal, reversing order of first appellate court, decreed the suit – Review petition also dismissed – On appeal, held: In order to prove possessory title, settled/established possession is required to be proved – Settled possession means possession which has existed for a sufficiently long period of time, and has been acquiesced to by the true owner – Settled possession must be effective, undisturbed and to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser – The possession should contain an element of animus possidendi – Occupation of the property as an agent or a servant at the instance of owner will not amount to actual legal possession – The nature of possession of trespasser is to be decided based on the facts and circumstances of each case – A casual act of possession or stray act of trespass, or a possession which has not matured into settled possession, can be obstructed or removed by true owner even by using necessary force – In the present case, no material is found to show that the plaintiff was in actual possession much less continuous possession for a long period which could be called settled possession – Defendant No.1 has proved his title and possession since the date of his purchase of the property – High Court was not justified in interfering with the finding of facts recorded by first appellate court – Suit stands dismissed – Possession