1938 (11) TMI 26 - Other - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Disputed possession of land and prescriptive title under Ordinance 22 of 1871.
2. Interpretation of possession, adverse title, and justa causa under the Ordinance.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed two actions in the District Court to recover possession of disputed land known as Maha Ettambagaha Kumbura. The District Judge and Supreme Court dismissed the actions based on the issue of prescriptive title under Ordinance 22 of 1871. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision solely on the ground of prescription, finding the defendants had not appeared at the hearing of the appeal.
2. The disputed land, primarily swampy, had some buildings and wild grass. Evidence showed defendant 1 and his mother had been in possession, cutting grass and building structures since 1911. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings that defendant 1 had adverse possession for the required period under the Ordinance. The appellants' argument regarding the evidence of possession before 1920 was rejected.
3. The appellants contended the Ordinance required possession with some title or right. However, the court found no such doctrine existed in Ceylon law when the Ordinance was enacted. The court analyzed the parenthetical clause in the Ordinance and previous judgments to interpret the requirement of adverse possession without a justa causa.
4. The court disagreed with a previous judgment that the parenthetical clause was irrelevant to the meaning of adverse title. The court emphasized the importance of the clause in explaining the character of possession necessary for prescription. The court clarified that possession by an agent or co-owner does not amount to dispossession under the Ordinance.
5. The consolidated appeal was dismissed, affirming the adverse possession of the defendants. The court held that the possession held by defendant 1 and his mother was adverse to the appellants, satisfying the requirements of Section 3 of the Ordinance. No costs were awarded as the respondents did not appear in the appeal.