Madhavan Nair, J.
1. In this case the plaintiff appellant sought to recover possession of a land from defendant 2; and he also asked for an order of injunction against him. It is not necessary to state the facts of the case in any detail.
2. The plaintiff supported his claim on the basis of title and also possession. The property admittedly belonged to Sanjivappa. The plaintiff lived with him and continued in possession of his land and his house after his death till 1925 when he was dispossessed of the former by defendant 2. The plaintiff put forward a 'will'Which has been found to be a forgery by the lower Courts. Defendant 2 resisted the plaintiff's case on the ground that he has obtained a sale deed from defendants 3 and 4. Both the lower Courts have found that defendants 3 and 4 had no title to convey to defendant 2 and that he has not proved his title. The result is that neither the plaintiff nor defendant 2 has been able to prove his title but the plaintiff has succeeded in showing that he was in possession for five years. The question is whether on the ground of that possession for five years he is not entitled to get a decree against defendant 2 who has neither title nor possession. It has been held in Ismail Ariff v. Mahomed Ghouse  20 Cal. 834 by the Privy Council that possession of land is sufficient evidence of right as against a person who has no title whatever and who is a trespasser. I think the principle of this decision should be applied in deciding the present case. It has been held in a series of cases all of which are referred to in Mt. Sahodra Koer v. Goberdhan Tewari  2 Pat. L.J. 280, (at p. 166 of 1917 P.H.C.C.) that where a person has no title, a decree can be given to him on the ground of possession as against a trespasser. The leading decision of this Court is the well-known decision in Narayana Row v. Dharmachar  26 Mad. 514. It is difficult to support the judgment of the lower Court on any ground. But Mr. Rajah Ayyar has tried to support it on the ground that it must be taken that the possession of the plaintiff began unlawfully, that he came into possession by force after the death of Sanjeevappa and if so, the decision in Nallagonda Pedda Chinna Reddy v. Asupallee Budda Reddy  31 I.C. 55, would be enough to support the judgment of the lower Court. Assuming that the decision is good law there is nothing to support the suggestion that the plaintiff came into possession forcibly and under the cover of a forged will. The facts show that he was staying with Sanjeevappa and after Sanjeevappa's death continued in possession of the house and the lands. In these circumstances the decree of the lower appellate Court should be set aside and the decree of the District Munsif should be restored with costs here and in the Courts below.