Adverse possession by prescription needs ten years of uninterrupted possession; no separate justus titulus or justa causa requirement applies.

Ten years' undisturbed and uninterrupted adverse possession was sufficient to perfect title by prescription under Section 3 of Ordinance 22 of 1871, because the evidence showed long continued acts of possession such as cutting and selling grass and occupying houses on the land. The local courts' concurrent findings on possession were supported by the evidence and were entitled to special weight. The section did not import any separate requirement of justus titulus or justa causa; the explanatory words described the nature of the possession rather than imposing an independent title condition. On that basis, the statutory bar of prescription applied and the claim to recover possession failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents had proved undisturbed and uninterrupted possession for ten years so as to perfect title by prescription under Section 3 of Ordinance 22 of 1871; (ii) Whether the section imported a further requirement that the possessor must hold under justus titulus or justa causa.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents had proved undisturbed and uninterrupted possession for ten years so as to perfect title by prescription under Section 3 of Ordinance 22 of 1871.

Analysis: The evidence accepted by both courts showed long continued acts of possession, including cutting and selling grass from the disputed land and the erection and occupation of houses on it over a number of years. Although the appellants challenged the sufficiency of the earliest years within the ten-year period, the concurrent findings below were supported by the whole of the evidence. The local courts were entitled to special weight on the character of such acts as evidence of possession in the local setting.

Conclusion: The respondents proved the requisite ten years of adverse possession, and the claim to prescription succeeded.

Issue (ii): Whether the section imported a further requirement that the possessor must hold under justus titulus or justa causa.

Analysis: The language of the ordinance did not support reading in a Roman-law requirement of a title however imperfect. The explanatory parenthesis was treated as defining the character of undisturbed and uninterrupted possession, not as introducing a separate condition of lawful or colourable title. The provision was also read consistently with earlier authority and with the purpose of the enactment, which was to bar claims after the statutory period of adverse possession, not to require proof of an independent juridical title.

Conclusion: No separate requirement of justus titulus or justa causa was imported into the section.

Final Conclusion: The statutory bar of prescription applied on the facts found, and the appellants were not entitled to recover possession.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 3 of Ordinance 22 of 1871, proof of ten years' undisturbed and uninterrupted possession adverse to the claimant is sufficient for prescription, and no additional requirement of justus titulus or justa causa is implied.

---