Title-based possession requires proof of land title; a builder on another's land cannot recover the standing house without superior land rights.

A person who erects a building on another's land cannot claim possession of the standing structure merely by asserting title to the superstructure; absent a superior right to the land, the remedy is limited to removal of materials or compensation, not recovery of the building as an independent asset. In a suit based on title, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title and can recover only the property actually proved to belong to him. On the Commissioner's identification, title was proved to the marked plot but not to the house standing outside it, so partial relief was appropriate: declaration and recovery of the identified plot, but not possession of the house.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a person who has put up a building on another's land can obtain a decree for possession of the building without establishing title to the land on which it stands. (ii) Whether the plaintiffs proved title to the land identified by the Commissioner and were entitled to partial relief in respect of the portion in the defendants' possession.

Issue (i): Whether a person who has put up a building on another's land can obtain a decree for possession of the building without establishing title to the land on which it stands.

Analysis: The right recognised in Indian law is not an absolute ownership of a building detached from the land in all circumstances. A person who erects a structure on another's land, without a supporting arrangement entitling him to retain it as against the landowner, may at most be entitled on eviction to remove the materials or receive compensation, and even a lessee's right to remove a building is limited while he remains in possession. A decree for possession of the building as a standing structure cannot be granted merely on the footing that the builder claims title to the superstructure if he cannot show title to the subjacent land.

Conclusion: A decree for possession of the building alone was not sustainable against the plaintiffs in the absence of title to the land supporting it.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiffs proved title to the land identified by the Commissioner and were entitled to partial relief in respect of the portion in the defendants' possession.

Analysis: The Commissioner's later plan and report were accepted as the reliable basis for identifying the suit property. On that material, the plaintiffs established title to the plot marked 10, but not to the house standing outside that plot. Since a plaintiff in a suit based on title must succeed on the strength of his own title, the plaintiffs could not recover the house, yet they were entitled to the land to which their title was proved. The appellate court could grant appropriate partial relief under its power to do complete justice in appeal.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were entitled to declaration of title to the identified plot and recovery of the portion in the defendants' possession, but not to possession of the house.

Final Conclusion: The decision grants partial relief by affirming the plaintiffs' title to the identified plot and denying recovery of the house, with costs awarded against the plaintiffs.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for possession based on title, a plaintiff can recover only what is supported by his own title; a person who has erected a building on another's land without a superior right to the land cannot obtain possession of the standing structure merely on the basis of having built it.

---