https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188479 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. en-us Fri, 18 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Jan 2024 16:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188479 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188479