## Facts

- A dispute arose over the possession of a piece of land.
- The plaintiff, Asher, claimed a right to the land based purely on possession.
- Asher’s predecessor had originally taken possession of the land without formal title.
- Following the predecessor’s death, Asher continued to occupy and possess the land.
- The defendant, Whitlock, entered the land and asserted a claim to it, challenging Asher’s right.
- The main factual question was whether Asher’s possession, inherited from his predecessor, established sufficient title against Whitlock.

## Issues

1. Whether possession of land without formal title is sufficient to establish a good title enforceable against all except the true owner.
2. Whether Asher, deriving possession from his predecessor, could maintain a claim against Whitlock, a subsequent occupier.

## Decision

- The court held that possession of land confers a good title enforceable against all but the true owner.
- Asher’s claim, based on possession, was sufficient to prevail against Whitlock’s competing claim.
- The court recognized the practicality and effectiveness of possession as a basis for legal claims in property disputes, especially when formal title documentation is absent.
- The judgment confirmed that the rights of a possessor are valid unless and until the true owner asserts a superior claim.

## Legal Principles

- Possession is recognized by common law as providing good title to land as against all except the true owner.
- The law protects the right of a possessor to maintain action against third parties who subsequently occupy without title.
- The decision supports the doctrine of adverse possession by validating occupation as a basis for property rights.
- Ensuring stability and certainty in land ownership, possession serves as a practical substitute for formal title where such documentation is lacking.

## Conclusion

Asher v Whitlock (1865) LR 1 QB 1 affirmed that possession, even absent formal legal title, gives rise to enforceable property rights against all except the true owner, establishing a fundamental rule for adverse possession and property disputes in English law.
