Oral gift and adverse possession claims fail where a tenant cannot prove transfer of title or hostile possession.

A tenant claiming ownership by oral gift must prove the gift with reliable evidence and conduct consistent with transfer of title; the claim failed because the donor was not examined, the supporting letter was unproved, and there was no mutation or other clear assertion of ownership. Mere silence or acquiescence by the recorded owner did not establish title. The tenant also could not claim adverse possession while the tenancy continued, and the possession remained referable to tenancy rather than hostile possession. The limitation defence under Article 67 was rejected on the facts, and Article 65 did not assist because title by gift was not proved. The appellate reversal was set aside and the suit decree restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent proved a valid oral gift of the suit property in its favour. (ii) Whether the respondent perfected title by adverse possession or could resist the suit on limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent proved a valid oral gift of the suit property in its favour.

Analysis: The respondent claimed title on the basis of an oral gift and therefore carried a heavy burden to establish the gift by reliable evidence and surrounding conduct. The evidence relied upon was found insufficient, since the alleged donor was not examined, the supposed supporting letter was not proved, and the respondent's conduct after the alleged gift did not consistently reflect ownership. The absence of mutation, disclosure to authorities, and other acts asserting ownership weakened the claim. Mere acquiescence or silence by the recorded owner did not establish transfer of title.

Conclusion: The respondent did not prove a valid oral gift, and the finding in its favour was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent perfected title by adverse possession or could resist the suit on limitation.

Analysis: A tenant cannot claim adverse possession while the tenancy continues, and the respondent's possession remained referable to its status as tenant. Since the claim of ownership by gift failed, there was no sufficient basis to infer animus possidendi or hostile possession. The limitation plea based on Article 67 was rejected because the case did not fall within that article on the facts found; the respondent failed to establish a limitation defence or title by prescription. Article 65 did not assist the respondent as its title claim was not proved.

Conclusion: The respondent did not establish adverse possession or a limitation defence.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court's reversal of the trial decree was set aside, and the suit decree in favour of the appellant stood restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A tenant asserting ownership by oral gift must strictly prove the gift and the change in character of possession, and mere acquiescence, long occupation, or non-examination of the donor does not by itself create title or establish adverse possession.

---