Narayana Row vs Dharmachar on 7 October, 1902
The Subordinate Judge was content to accept this suggestion. But, in our opinion, he was not entitled to do so, unless there was some evidence on record to support it. The Subordinate Judge, no doubt, finds that Gopala Menon's jenm title has not been proved. But in the absence of any better title proved on behalf of the devaswam, Gopal Menon's possessory title which passed to the plaintiff is sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to a decree in ejectment against the 17th defendant, a possesory title being good against all the world except the true owner. See Narayana Row v. Dharmachar 26 M. 514; Shi Gopal v. Ayesha Begam 29 A. 52 : 3 A.L.J. 775 : A.W.N. (1906) 264 and Perry v. Clissold (1907) A.C. 73 : 76 L.J.P.C. 19 : 95 L.T. 890 : 23 T.L.R. 232. The result is that the decree of lower Appellate Court must be modified and that of the District Munsif must be restored. The appellant's costs in this and in the lower Appellate Court will be paid in equal proportions by the 17th and the 18th defendants.