AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant is respondent's sister, and in 1859 they jointly purchased the paramba in dispute. It is found that the exclusive title set up by the appellant has not been proved.
Though the appellant has been in possession from 1878 when the respondent went to live in Ponnani, yet the Subordinate Judge finds that the latter has been frequently visiting the
house on the paramba for ceremonies and festivals. Upon these facts, we agree with the Subordinate Judge in thinking that Article 142
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 142:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Description of Suit. | Period of | Time when period begins
| limitation. | to run.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
For possession of Immovable pro- | Twelve years. | When possession of the
perty, or any interest therein not here- | | defendant becomes adverse to the
by otherwise specially provided for. | | plaintiff.]
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
is not applicable, but that Article 144 applies. The onus of proving adverse possession for upwards of twelve years was, therefore, on the appellant, and, as she failed to do so, the
lower Appellate Court was right in decreeing the claim. It was also held in Sayad Nyamtula v. Nana I.L.R.13 Bom.424 and Faki Abdulla v. Babaji Gungaji ILR 14 Bom. 458,
that it was for the defendant to prove adverse possession for twelve years or more when Article 144 applied to the suit.
We dismiss this second appeal with costs.