Summary
In a permanent-injunction suit concerning adjoining sites, the Court upheld the finding that the plaintiff lawfully possessed the disputed site based on witness testimony and a registered general power of attorney. It expressly declined to decide whether that document transferred ownership, a question implicated in separate title litigation.
Issues
- Whether the evidence supported lawful possession warranting permanent injunction.
- Whether the injunction appeal required determination of ownership under the general power of attorney.
Held
- The suit sought permanent injunction and turned on lawful possession. The vendor’s testimony and the general power of attorney supported the High Court’s possession finding; bare allegations of forgery and challenges to identity did not make that finding perverse. (¶¶ 4–6, 8)
- The Court left open the contention that the disputed site fell outside the vendor’s deed and that a power of attorney could not transfer ownership. Title was not the touchstone of this possessory injunction suit, and separate declaratory litigation was pending in appeal. The judgment therefore does not hold that the power of attorney conveyed title. (¶ 7)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs; permanent injunction upheld on possession, with no opinion expressed on the disputed ownership question.