AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 120 words
1.
It was found in the former suit that the defendant had been in adverse possession of the house for more than 12 years before that suit. It follows
that he was in possession also of the site on which that house stands and this site is all that is in question in the present appeal. The plaintiff has not
in his plaint accounted for the possession of the defendant and that possession must, therefore, be held to be adverse to him.
2.
The suit is thus barred by limitation and we must allow the appeal and reversing the decree of the lower appellate Court restore that of the
District Munsif with costs here and in the lower appellate Court.