In Brief
This case involved a dispute over land possession. The plaintiff-appellant claimed the property had vested with a Managing Officer and was subsequently transferred to him. The defendants claimed they acquired title through adverse possession based on their continuous possession and receipts dating to 1963. The Supreme Court held that continuous possession alone cannot ripen into title by adverse possession. Since the defendants never admitted the plaintiff as owner or acknowledged the property's vesting with the Managing Officer, their possession could not be deemed hostile to the true owner as required by law. Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court's decision and decreed the suit in the plaintiff's favour."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.