In Brief
In this property dispute, the plaintiff purchased land at a public auction from the Managing Officer of the Department of Rehabilitation in 1964. When he later sought to take possession, the defendants claimed they had owned the property for generations and had perfected title through adverse possession. The High Court dismissed the suit, finding the defendants' 12-year possession was adverse to the plaintiff's title. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that adverse possession requires not merely long possession but affirmative proof of hostile intent denying the true owner's rights, pleaded and proven clearly. Since defendants merely asserted continuous family occupation without evidence of hostile animus, their adverse possession claim failed and the plaintiff's suit was decreed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.