AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 166 wordsPlaintiffs sue in ejectment claiming title by ancestral right or by adverse possession for over twelve years. Both the lower Courts have found that
the plaintiffs'' title is not proved, but the lower Appellate Court has given the plaintiffs a decree on the Strength of their possessory title and
dispossession by a trespasser. No such claim was set up in the plaint nor in the first memorandum of appeal and we do not think that such a claim
should be allowed in this case, when the defendants have not had an opportunity of meeting it, for in a suit based upon possessory title a defendant
may well have grounds for opposing the claim, which would be of no avail in a suit brought by the real owner. In this view we follow the decision in
Maikal Servai v. Thambuswami Servai 25 Ind. Cas. 934 : (1914) M.W.N. 784 : 1 L.W. 853 and accordingly allow the appeal and dismiss the
plaintiffs'' suit with costs throughout.
