Settled possession protects injunction claims; title evidence is barred without a pleaded issue, and Letters Patent Appeal remained maintainable.

Letters Patent Appeal was held maintainable because Section 100 CPC did not govern the Single Judge's judgment under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. A suit for injunction was sustained on the basis of exclusive, continuous and settled possession, even though title was not proved, because possessory protection and due process requirements prevent dispossession by self-help. Additional evidence on title was held inadmissible where no plea or issue on title existed, and the remand could not be expanded to decide title. The Division Bench decree based on possession was therefore restored and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Letters Patent Appeal against the Single Judge's judgment was maintainable. (ii) Whether a person in long and continuous possession, without establishing title, could sustain a suit for injunction against the person claiming ownership. (iii) Whether additional evidence on title could be received in the absence of any plea or issue on title.

Issue (i): Whether the Letters Patent Appeal against the Single Judge's judgment was maintainable.

Analysis: The appellate remedy under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure was inapplicable because it governs second appeals from decrees of subordinate courts. The Single Judge's judgment fell within Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, and the objection to maintainability had not been raised earlier.

Conclusion: The Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether a person in long and continuous possession, without establishing title, could sustain a suit for injunction against the person claiming ownership.

Analysis: The suit was founded on exclusive and continuous possession, not on title. The question of title had been left open, and there was no issue on title. Possessory title and settled possession are protected in law, and even an owner must recover possession through due process of law rather than by self-help. The notice relied upon did not amount to an admission that displaced the respondent's possession.

Conclusion: The suit for injunction was maintainable on the basis of possession.

Issue (iii): Whether additional evidence on title could be received in the absence of any plea or issue on title.

Analysis: Where there is no plea and no issue on title, evidence on that question is not admissible. The Single Judge exceeded the scope of the remand and the suit by permitting additional evidence and by deciding the matter on title.

Conclusion: Additional evidence on title was not admissible.

Final Conclusion: The judgment of the Division Bench restoring the decree based on possession was upheld, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A person in settled and continuous possession can seek protection by injunction even against an owner, and possession can be disturbed only by due process of law; title cannot be adjudicated or proved through evidence when no plea or issue on title exists.

---