1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent in a suit brought for recovery of possession of land and for declaration of the plaintiff's right therein. The plaintiff claims to be entitled to possession of the land under the Raja of Narajole. His right was affirmed by the Munsif who passed a decree in hip, favour. But on appeal, the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court reversed that decree and dismissed the suit. The judgment now under appeal has affirmed the decree of the lower Appellate Court. It is quite true that the plaintiff alleged a title in himself to possession derived from one Tripura and that this title of Tripura's has been negatived by the lower Appellate Court. The plaintiffs right, however, as formulated in the plaint, did not rest on that alone, but there were allegations of possession over a considerable number of years and also of payment of rent to the Raja of Narajole, who admittedly was the proprietor of the land and able to give a right to possession.
2. The lower Appellate Court has obviously fallen into error on at least one point. Bat it is unnecessary for us to base our decision on that. It is enough for us to take the facts as they are established, and consider whether on those facts the position is not this that the plaintiff not only was in possession but had a title to possession. Though the lower Appeal, late Court evidently was not satisfied on the evidence as to Tripura's possession, the plaintiff's possession was held to be proved, nor was there any disturbance of the finding of the Munsif that, as an incident of that possession, rent was paid by the plaintiff to the landlord. It appears, therefore, to us that we must accept those two facts as established in this case, and from those two facts the legal inference flows that the plaintiff in this case was not only in possession but was in possession by virtue of a title derived from the owner of the land which gave the plaintiff a right to possession. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to deal with that conflict of authority between the decisions of this Court on the one hand and those of the other High Courts in India on the other, as to whether possession by itself is a sufficient basis for a possessory suit outside Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. Here we have something more than that for the plaintiff had a right to possession which entitled him to bring a suit in the ordinary course for the purpose of recovering the possession to which he was entitled and of which he had been deprived. It does not appear necessary to send down the case for further investigation for we have ample materials before us for our decision that the plaintiff has made out his right to have possession restored to him in this suit.
3. We accordingly set aside the judgment under appeal as also the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore the decree of the Munsif: and the plaintiff must get his costs throughout this litigation.
4. I agree.