Summary
Purchasers sought possession of two rooms occupied by a relative who asserted adverse possession based on40years’ residence. The Court held that the plea lacked the necessary particulars and proof of hostile ownership and that the occupation was permissive. It reversed the High Court’s factual reassessment in second appeal and restored the first appellate decree.
Issues
- Whether long occupation established adverse possession without particulars of hostile assertion.
- Whether the High Court could reverse the first appellate factual findings through reappreciation in second appeal.
Held
- Second appeal does not permit a fresh appraisal of oral evidence merely to prefer the trial court’s view over the first appellate court’s. Factual interference can be justified by perversity or conflict with law, pleadings or evidence, but no such defect was established here. (¶ 17–19)
- Long possession alone is insufficient. The defendant must plead and prove when and how hostile ownership began, its nature, continuity, extent and publicity, and the true owner’s knowledge. The bare allegation of40years’ separate residence supplied none of the necessary particulars or proof. (¶ 20–28)
- The relative occupied permissively without title. Once the purchasers acquired ownership by registered conveyance and revoked permission, he was required to restore possession. The first appellate decree was restored in full. (¶ 29–32)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court orders set aside and first appellate decree granting the purchasers’ suit, including possession and its monetary relief, restored.