Is a person in settled possession protected against the rightful owner of the property?

Paragraph 12The learned counsel for the appellant further relied on the judgment in the case of M.Thirunavukkarasu /v/ Annamalai University, rep. by its Registrar, dated 19.05.2020 in S.A.No.1050 of 1999 held in paragraph Nos.43 to 45 as follows: “43. For the aforesaid reasons this court is of the view that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration of title and for permanent injunction. However, considering the fact that the plaintiff is in settled possession and that the defendant-University itself has filed a suit for declaration of its title and for recovery of possession in OS.No.100 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Chidambaram, this court is of the view that the plaintiff's possession shall be protected atleast till he is evicted by due process of law i.e., till the defendant – University gets decree for possession OS.No.100 of 2004. 44. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the decision in Rame Gowda (D) by LRS Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by L.Rs & Another (Appeal (Civil) No.7662 of 1997 on the file of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 15.12.2003) wherein a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to various decisions has held as follows:- “....If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law, he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with his possession. The law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injunction even a rightful owner from using force or taking law in his own hands,..............” 45. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the plaintiff is entitled to protect his possession till he is evicted by due process of law.'' Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as rightly held by the trial Court. But the first Appellate Court has erred in reversing the finding of the trial Court. Hence, the learned counsel for the plaintiff prays that the judgment passed by the first Appellate Court has to be set aside by allowing this appeal.

Paragraph 21It is a settled position of law that the litigant is entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing his settled possession over the property. It is also a settled position that when both the plaintiff and the defendant have not proved their title and the defendant has not proved his superior title while denying the title of the plaintiff, then the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction for his established possession. The Hon’ble Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court has clearly held in Rame Gowda (D) By Lrs. vs M. Varadappa Naidu (D) By Lrs. & Anr. in AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT. “When the defendant fails in proving his title to the suit land the plaintiff can succeed in securing a decree for possession on the basis of his prior possession against the defendant who has dispossessed him. Such a suit will be founded on the averment of previous possession of the plaintiff and dispossession by the defendant..... In the present case the trial Court has found the plaintiff as having failed in proving his title. Nevertheless, he has been found to be in settled possession of the property. Even the defendant failed in proving his title over the disputed land so as to substantiate his entitlement to evict the plaintiff. The Trial Court therefore left the question of title open and proceeded to determine the suit on the basis of possession, protecting the established possession and restraining the attempted interference therewith. The Trial Court and the High Court have rightly decided the suit. ….”