In Brief
Two first cousins disputed ownership of agricultural land. The defendants claimed title through a 1940 release deed, adverse possession, and revenue entries, while the plaintiff asserted ownership through an oral family partition in 1935 that gave the land to his ancestor. The trial court favoured the plaintiff; the appellate court reversed it; the high court restored the trial judgment. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court, holding that where family members admit an oral partition fully acted upon for decades, the party claiming adverse possession or conflicting title bears the burden of proving it with cogent evidence. The defendants failed to do so. Appeal dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.