290 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Section 9.
This Section deals with the subject of unlawful dispossession, and gives to the person dispossessed the alternative of two remedies.—
(i) He may simply prove the fact of his unlawful dispossession, in a suit instituted by him within six months thereof, recover possession of the property. The question of his title to the property is quite immaterial.
(ii) He may recover possession by relying on his title in a suit brought by him for that purpose. Here his success depends upon his proof of title.
The former remedy is called remedy by way of a possessory suit and is enacted in Section 9. The latter is the ordinary remedy of a suit based on title and is embodied in Section 8.
Nature and object of Section 9.
(i) To prevent people from taking the law into their own hands, however good their title may be.
(ii) To prevent the shifting of the burden of proof owing to dispossession—Possession being prima facie evidence of title.
Anterior possession per se constitutes a perfect title to property as between the dispossessed and the dispossessor, in a suit under Section 9, i.e. within six months of the dispossession.
Question. —What is the effect of anterior possession in a suit for possession by a person, who is dispossessed after 6 months have elapsed and a suit under Section 9 is barred ?
The following propositions have been judicially established :—
(i) Possession for a period of sixty years and upwards is sufficient to create a title in the possessor which no one can question.—8 D.R. 386.
(ii) Adverse possession for 12 years under article 142 is itself title even against the rightful owner himself.
Consequently, where in a suit for possession, a plea of adverse possession during the prescribed period of limitation is set up by the Defdt. the question of limitation becomes a question of title, and the Piff. must furnish prima facie proof of subsisting title at the date of his suit, before the Defdt. is required to establish his adverse possession.