VENKATRAYUDU Vs. SUBBAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE finding is that possession passed to the 1 defendant under the oral gift in 1884. In our opinion that possession was adverse to the title of the donor. Both the 1 defendant and the donor believed that the 1 defendant's title to the land was good, and that she held it as owner by virtue of the oral gift. She did not admit that any right any longer existed in the donor. She prescribed for the full ownership as against the donor and every one else from 1884, and her possession was, therefore, adverse whether her title was valid or not. THE appellant relies on the cases Rajah Haimun Chull Singh V/s. Koomer Gunsheam Singh 5 W.R.P.C. 69 and Labrador Company V/s. THE Queen 1893 A.C. 104 at 122, but we do not think that the principle of those cases applies in the present case. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.