However, what has been argued before this Court is that the appellants are admittedly in long and settled possession of the suit property and therefore, they are entitled to protect their possession and they cannot be evicted forcibly and illegally except in due course of law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Sohan Singh and another v. Jhaman 1986(1) PLR 326. The argument as raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is without any merit in view of the judgment of this Court in Sukhwant Singh Versus Divisional Forest Officer and another 2009 (3) PLR 433 wherein after relying upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Premji Ratansey Shah and others v. Union of India and others (1994) 5 SCC 547, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others (2004) 3 SCC 137, Prataprai N. Kothari v. John Braganza (1999) 4 SCC 403, Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and others v. Pune Municipal corporation and another (1995) 3 SCC 33 , Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A.Viswam (Dead) by LRs. (1996) 8 SCC 259, Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1993) 3SCC 161, it has been held that an injunction cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiffs who are in an unauthorized possession and against the defendants who are the true owners of the suit land. In the above referred judgments, it is clearly made out that it is the consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a trespasser cannot seek injunction against the true owner though he may have a right to protect his possession against the whole world.
