Summary
The Supreme Court decreed the auction purchaser’s possession suit and rejected the defendants’ adverse-possession claim. Their continuous occupation and receipts did not establish the necessary hostile possession against the true owner. The plaintiff’s title had been upheld throughout, while the defence denied both the government custodian’s title and the transfer to the plaintiff without adequately pleading or proving the required adverse character. Long possession alone did not mature into ownership.
Issues
- Whether continuous occupation and supporting receipts established adverse possession despite the absence of adequate pleading and proof of hostility to the true owner’s title.
Held
- Adverse possession requires clearly pleaded and proved possession that is open, continuous and hostile to the true owner, with the requisite intention and knowledge. Length of occupation or tax-related material alone is insufficient, and evidence cannot repair the absence of the necessary pleaded case. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- The defendants relied on continuous possession and denied the underlying vesting and sale, but did not plead that their possession was hostile to the true owner. Their evidence and receipts established continuity rather than the requisite adverse title. The High Court’s conclusion could not be sustained. (¶ 16)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and decree set aside and plaintiff’s suit for possession decreed.