1. The plaintiffs in the case referred to us allege in their plaint that they are the proprietors of certain shares in a mouza, and under that title are in separate possession of a certain share in some land held by a common tenant of themselves and the defendants, who are the proprietors of the remaining shares of the mouza. The plaintiffs claim to have the corn-rent payable by that tenant divided between themselves and the defendants in the proportion in which the plaint alleges the land to be separately possessed by them and the defendants.
2. The suit is, therefore, not based upon the plaintiffs' possession only, but also upon their title, and their right to succeed depends upon their proving such title.
3. The first question, on which our opinion is solicited, describes the questions of right which have to be determined between the parties to this suit as de facto rights and interests. But the law knows nothing about de facto rights in such a case as the present. Suits relating to property are sometimes founded on title, and sometimes on possession alone; and in the latter case, title is not enquired into. In the present case the suit is of the former description.
4. With these preliminary remarks we proceed to give our decision on the two questions submitted to us, which are: (i) that the registration under Bong. Act VII of 1876 is not only not conclusive proof, but no evidence at all upon the question of the title of the plaintiff's to the share which they claim; and (ii) that the registration referred to does not relieve the plaintiff's from the onus of proving their title to these shares.
5. Whether, in a suit founded upon possession alone, or in which the relief sought depends solely upon possession, such registration ought not to be treated as prim facie evidence of actual possession at the date when the registration was effected is a question unnecessary to be decided upon the present reference.
6. We may add, that, if the plaintiffs are unable to give any evidence of title, their suit must fail, unless it is shown that the defendants have deprived, them of the share or some part of thE share of the corn-rent which the defendants admit to belong to them, or unless thE District Judge thinks fit to permit further evidence of title to be given by the plaintiffs, and they satisfy the Court from the further evidence adduced that they have a good title to the share which they claim in the land.
7. We observe that the Munsif did not try the question of title, but only that of possession; and it would therefore seem only fair, that the plaintiff's should have an opportunity of adducing fresh evidence if they can upon the question of title.
8. As neither of the parties was represented by counsel in this Court, we make no order as to costs.