In Brief
In this property dispute, the plaintiff claimed title and possession of a plot based on previous possession without documentary proof. The defendants held registered sale deeds showing transfer of the property. The High Court had favoured the plaintiff, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision. The Court held that to claim possessory title under the Limitation Act, a plaintiff must prove settled, continuous, and undisturbed possession for a sufficiently long period. Mere casual possession or stray acts of trespass are insufficient. Since the plaintiff provided no credible evidence of long-term possession, the suit was dismissed and the First Appellate Court's judgment was restored.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.