https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287960 The High Court rejected the second appeal, affirming the Trial Court and Appellate Court's findings. The plaintiff's title to the property was established through documentary evidence, and the defendants failed to prove adverse possession. The court upheld the admissibility of evidence presented by the Power of Attorney Holder, clarifying it was not necessary for matters requiring personal knowledge. As no substantial question of law arose, the appeal was dismissed at the admission stage. en-us Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 May 2020 10:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287960 The High Court rejected the second appeal, affirming the Trial Court and Appellate Court's findings. The plaintiff's title to the property was established through documentary evidence, and the defendants failed to prove adverse possession. The court upheld the admissibility of evidence presented by the Power of Attorney Holder, clarifying it was not necessary for matters requiring personal knowledge. As no substantial question of law arose, the appeal was dismissed at the admission stage. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287960