In Brief
The case concerns ownership of agricultural land. The plaintiff (Dagadabai) inherited the suit land from her father Rustum Pinjari and sued to recover possession from the defendant Abbas, claiming the defendant was in unlawful occupation. The defendant claimed ownership through two inconsistent grounds: first, as Rustum's adopted son (by inheritance), and second, through adverse possession of over 12 years. The trial and appellate courts decreed in the plaintiff's favour, finding both pleas unsustainable. The High Court reversed this. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred: concurrent findings of fact are binding; the defendant must first admit the plaintiff's title when claiming adverse possession; and inconsistent pleas cannot be taken. The appeal was allowed, and the trial court's decree was restored in favour of the plaintiff.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.