possession. In that view of the matter, defendant had categorically admitted the title of Channakul Erappa who is the father of the plaintiff in the present suit. Thus, there was no requirement of the plaintiff to seek the relief of declaration of title to the suit properties. It is the first principle of law that possession follows title in respect of vacant land. In the present case, the defendants claimed that the suit properties are agricultural land in which they are in possession. The defendants have failed to establish their title to the property but their possession in the suit property was protected by a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff herein from dispossessing the defendants except in accordance with law. The present suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.94/2007 was a proceeding which was “in accordance with law” to recover possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant. Thus, the defendant having once admitted the prior title of the plaintiff and they having not established any better right to remain in possession of the suit schedule properties, the defendants are bound in law to quit and deliver vacant
