In Brief
In this property possession case, the plaintiff sought recovery of a house after being illegally dispossessed. The trial court granted a partial decree allowing recovery of part of the property. On appeal, the defendants sought to introduce new evidence and amend their written statement to claim they had purchased the property during the suit, but the High Court rejected these applications. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, holding that concurrent findings of the lower courts deserve no interference. The Court confirmed that a person dispossessed through illegal means may recover possession based solely on prior possession, and that amendments cannot be allowed at appellate stage after unexplained delay. The appeal was dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.