In Brief
A citizen purchased land in 1941 and held lawful title, but temples, mosques, latrines and public utilities were constructed on it by municipal and government bodies without consent. The Trial Court found he was the true owner and entitled to removal of encroachments and compensation, but rejected his claim for alternative land. The High Court overturned even the ownership finding because he had not examined his vendor as a witness. The Supreme Court held the High Court should have remanded the case to allow him to prove title with additional evidence, rather than dismiss the suit, since the defendants never challenged the Trial Court's ownership decree. The Court remanded the case for retrial and directed the Trial Court to first attempt settlement under statutory provisions.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.