https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290063 In a suit for possession of jungle land, title could support constructive possession where the land was virgin jungle and no adverse possession or interference was shown before the alleged dispossession. On those facts, possession was held in law to follow title, so the plaintiff could rely on constructive possession in second appeal and the suit was not barred by Article 142 of the Limitation Act. The identity of the land could not be resolved on oral evidence alone, so local investigation and further inquiry were required to determine whether the defendants occupied the leased land and, if so, the terms of possession, including compensation for improvements. The matter was remanded for that limited inquiry. en-us Wed, 06 Apr 1927 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Sep 2020 13:24:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290063 In a suit for possession of jungle land, title could support constructive possession where the land was virgin jungle and no adverse possession or interference was shown before the alleged dispossession. On those facts, possession was held in law to follow title, so the plaintiff could rely on constructive possession in second appeal and the suit was not barred by Article 142 of the Limitation Act. The identity of the land could not be resolved on oral evidence alone, so local investigation and further inquiry were required to determine whether the defendants occupied the leased land and, if so, the terms of possession, including compensation for improvements. The matter was remanded for that limited inquiry. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 Apr 1927 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290063