In Brief
A property owner challenged a High Court decision that had overturned lower court orders evicting an occupant. The High Court had found the occupant was a tenant rather than an encroacher, making the suit maintainable only under tenancy laws. The Supreme Court held this was legally wrong because: the occupant never pleaded tenancy in the written statement but instead claimed ownership through adverse possession; the High Court should not have decided a plea absent from the pleadings; concurrent findings of fact by lower courts bind the High Court in second appeals; and there was no independent evidence of tenancy. The Court restored the eviction order and held the registered owner was entitled to eject the encroacher who failed to prove adverse possession.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.