Decree of possession cannot be passed in favour of plaintiff merely because defendants were unable to fully establish their title.

The petitioner acting as an attorney had filed a title suit on behalf of her principle, for declaration that her principle was the owner of the suit property. The decision of the Trial Court in decreeing the suit by holding that the plaintiff had right, title and interest in the said property, was reversed by the High Court of Gauhati. The Supreme Court eventually found that plaintiff was not been able to discharge the burden to establish legal ownership over suit property, by producing evidence and documents. The Supreme Court has observed that a decree of possession cannot be passed in favour of the plaintiff merely because defendants were not able to fully establish their right, title and interest in the property. A person in possession of land in the assumed character as the owner, and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership, has a legal right against the entire world except the rightful owner. Defendants cannot be dispossessed unless the plaintiff has established a better title and rights over the suit property. Decree in favour of plaintiff was rightly set aside.