https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288146 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. en-us Thu, 17 Nov 1938 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 May 2020 10:38:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288146 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Nov 1938 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288146