Possession follows title

Possession follows Title:

In a case it was argued that where having regard to the nature of the land, which is admitteUndly a waste land, the Court should have held that ‘possession follows title’. That since possession should be deemed to have been presumptively with the plaintiffs as they have proved their title to the land, the defendants should not be allowed to succeed unless they prove adverse possession of the land for over 12 years. This argument is fallacious and cannot be accepted. It is true that in case of waste land, if the plaintiff proves his title to it he can prove possession by relying on the presumption that possession follows title inasmuch as possession of waste land cannot be proved by act of actual user; but if the plaintiff puts forward a case of effective possession and adduces evidence in support of it as the plaintiffs have done in this case, then, he cannot give up that case and rely upon any ‘presumption’ in support of his possession because the special case set up by him is inconsistent with any such presumption.

Where definite evidence of acts of possession is forthcoming there is no difference between the proof of possession in case of a jungle, waste or uncultivated lands and in that of cultivated lands. But whereas in the case of cultivated lands the plaintiff will fail if he does not prove his possession within 12 years, in the case of jungle or waste lands, if he proves his title, there is a presumption in his favour where, having regard to the nature of the land, possession cannot be expected to be proved by acts of actual user and enjoyment. If, however, the plaintiff asserts that he exercised acts of ownership upon the land and adduces evidence in support of such assertion, he cannot, where such evidence is disbelieved by the Court, turn round and rely upon any presumption, because the case set up by him negatives the existence of circumstances which would give rise to the presumption, and is inconsistent with it.

In this case, it is stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit plot, that they tried to erect a temple on it and then erected a Nandavanam; and while they were in such effective occupation and enjoyment the defendants trespassed and began to build a wall on the plot in question. In this connexion it should also be noted that they were in such effective occupation of the suit plot they relied upon the possession and enjoyment to such an extent that they claimed also prescriptive title to the land by adverse possession. These circumstances would show how inconsistent is the present plea of ‘presumptive possession’ with the actual case put forward by them in the plaint and sought to be supported by their evidence.

**