Settled possession protects occupiers from self-help dispossession; owners must recover possession only through due process of law.

Settled possession is protected against forcible dispossession, even where the possessor's underlying right to remain is disputed. The owner must use due process of law and cannot resort to self-help, force, or surreptitious methods to retake possession. On the facts stated, the possessor had been unlawfully dispossessed behind her back, and the court maintained the decree restoring possession through legal process with further protective directions to secure effective delivery.

---

---

Issues: Whether a person in settled possession, even if ultimately found to have no independent right to remain in possession, can be dispossessed by the owner otherwise than through due process of law.

Analysis: The Court held that settled possession attracts legal protection and that the owner cannot take the law into his own hands to dispossess such a possessor. The principle applies even where the possessor's right is disputed, because dispossession must be effected through lawful remedies and not by force or surreptitious means. On the facts found by the courts below, the plaintiff had been unlawfully dispossessed behind her back, and the appellant's conduct also made the grant of special leave relief wholly inappropriate.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to retain or restore possession by self-help, and the respondent was entitled to restoration of possession through legal process.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected and the decree in favour of the respondent was maintained, with further protective directions to secure effective delivery of possession.

Ratio Decidendi: A person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed by the owner except by recourse to law, even if the possessor's underlying right to remain is disputed.

---