In Brief
In this civil appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether a High Court was justified in overturning the concurrent findings of two lower courts that dismissed a suit seeking perpetual injunction. The plaintiffs, co-sharers of property inherited from their father, sought to restrain defendants (who purchased their share from another co-sharer) from interfering with their possession. The Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent factual findings without demonstrating legal error or perversity. Under established law, one co-sharer's possession is treated as possession of all co-sharers and cannot be adverse unless accompanied by express denial and statutory exclusion. The plaintiffs failed to prove exclusive possession. The appeal was allowed and the original dismissal was restored.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.