In Brief
A shop owner sued an occupant for possession, claiming ownership through a registered sale deed. The trial court and first appellate court both found the owner entitled to possession and rejected the occupant's claim of adverse possession. However, the High Court reversed course, finding the occupant was a tenant rather than an encroacher, and dismissed the suit as misconceived. The Supreme Court held the High Court erred: the occupant never pleaded tenancy in his written statement, only adverse possession. Concurrent findings by lower courts bind an appellate court in second appeals unless a substantial question of law is formally framed and addressed. No evidence of tenancy (lease, rent receipts, landlord testimony) was presented, so mere possession mentioned in a sale deed cannot establish tenant status. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts, restored the possession decree, and set aside the High Court's order.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.