AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The finding is that possession passed to the 1st defendant under the oral gift in 1884. In our opinion that possession was adverse to the title of
the donor. Both the 1st defendant and the donor believed that the 1st defendant''s title to the land was good, and that she held it as owner by virtue
of the oral gift. She did not admit that any right any longer existed in the donor. She prescribed for the full ownership as against the donor and
every one else from 1884, and her possession was, therefore, adverse whether her title was valid or not. The appellant relies on the cases Rajah
Haimun Chull Singh v. Koomer Gunsheam Singh 5 W.R.P.C. 69 and Labrador Company v. The Queen 1893 A.C. 104 but we do not think that
the principle of those cases applies in the present case. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.