In so holding, the court relied on cases decided before the adoption of the new Code of Civil Procedure in 1960, which held that if the defendant in a petitory action has possession without a title translative of ownership, the plaintiff need only establish a better title than defendant, Kernan v. Baham, 45 La. Ann. 799, 13 So. 155 (1893); In re St. Vincent de Paul Benevolent Association of New Orleans, 175 So. 140 (Orl.App. 1937); Peters v. Crawford, 185 So. 716 (La.App., 2d Cir. 1939); Booksh v. New Iberia Sugar Company, 115 La. 516, 39 So. 545 (1905). See also Hutton v. Adkins, 186 So. 908 (La.App. 1939); Griggs v. Martin, 170 So. 355 (La.App. 1936); Mower v. Barrow, 16 La. App. 227, 133 So. 782 (1931); and Zeringue v. Williams, 15 La. Ann. 76 (1860). As we understand this case, it involved an action to try title rather than a petitory action.
Our courts have repeatedly held that a plaintiff who institutes a petitory action against one who claims not by title, but by possession only, need not adduce evidence disclosing a perfect title, but must exhibit some color of title. Doles v. Cockrell, 10 La. Ann. 540; Kernan v. Baham, 45 La. Ann. 799, 13 So. 155; Slattery v. Heilperin Leonard, 110 La. 86, 34 So. 139; Mower v. Barrow, 16 La. App. 227, 133 So. 782; Griggs v. Martin, La. App., 170 So. 355. In Baldwin v. Arkansas-Louisiana Pipe Line Co., 185 La. 1051, 171 So. 442, plaintiff, claiming under an omnibus description deed, brought a petitory action against a lessee whose lessor held recorded title by mesne conveyance specifically describing the property involved.