Summary
The Supreme Court restored concurrent dismissal of a perpetual-injunction suit concerning undivided co-owned land. The plaintiffs had not proved exclusive possession, while the defendants had purchased from another co-sharer and stepped into that vendor’s position. The High Court improperly reversed supported factual findings in second appeal without identifying perversity or conflict with law, pleadings or evidence.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could disturb the concurrent factual findings.
- Whether the plaintiffs established a basis to exclude purchasers from another co-sharer.
Held
- Concurrent factual findings based on the evidence bind the second appellate court unless they conflict with law, pleadings or evidence, or are wholly perverse. No such basis for interference was established here. (¶¶ 10–13, 21)
- Possession by one co-sharer ordinarily represents possession of all. Adverse possession against the others requires a denial of their rights to their knowledge, followed by exclusion and ouster for the statutory period. The plaintiffs failed to establish their asserted exclusive possession. (¶ 17–18)
- The purchasers stepped into the shoes of their co-sharer vendor and could defend that title and possession. On the proved circumstances, the plaintiffs had no basis for the injunction sought against them. (¶ 19–20)
Result
Appeal allowed. High Court decree set aside; trial and first appellate decrees dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit restored.