In Brief
The plaintiff sought permanent injunction to protect his alleged possession of a property against the defendant's interference, without seeking a declaration of title. The trial court found the plaintiff had not proved possession; the first appellate court reversed this, relying on kist payment receipts; the High Court set aside the appellate judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, holding that mere kist payment does not establish possession. The High Court properly examined the divergent findings of the courts below to detect perversity and material irregularity, even within the limited scope of Second Appeal review. The burden to prove possession lay on the plaintiff, who failed to establish it through credible evidence beyond his own assertions.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.