“It is a fundamental principle that possession is presumptive evidence of title. In Asher v. Shilock (1865 L.R.I QB.1) Cockburn, C.J., observed, “I take it to be established by authority that possession is good against all the world except the person who can show a better title than one in possession”. It is therefore necessary in every suit for possession, that the plaintiff should have a better title than that of the defendant. In other words, he must succeed on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of the defendant's case. Proof of proprietary title on the part of the plaintiff would certainly be a better title than that of a defendant who is merely in possession of the property and is not able to refer his possession on any legal basis. However, the mere fact that the plaintiff in a suit for possession shows a better title, proprietary or possessory, than that of the defendant will not necessarily entitle the plaintiff to get a decree for possession against the defendant. For, it is another basic principle that it is the obligation of the plaintiff in every case to show that his action or suit is not barred by limitation. That is why S.3 of the Limitation Act makes the question of
