(COURT OF APPEAL)

HEIRS OF EL AMIN ABDEL KARIM v. HEIRS OF ABDEL AZIZ

HAG MOHAMED

AC-REV67-1958

 Principles

·  Evidence—Ancient document—Deed over twenty years old proves itself

·  Prescription—Family relationship—Prescription and Limitation Ordinance 1928, s. 4 (3(

·  Presumption rebutted where purchaser of land held exclusively for many years on basis of sale

(i) A deed of sale over twenty years old is an ancient document and proves  itself.
(ii) One who possesses land exclusively for.many years on the basis of a sale to him from his brother is in adverse possession, and may rebut the presumption that he holds on behalf of the brother.

(i) A deed of sale over twenty years old is an ancient document and proves  itself.
(ii) One who possesses land exclusively for.many years on the basis of a sale to him from his brother is in adverse possession, and may rebut the presumption that he holds on behalf of the brother.

(i) A deed of sale over twenty years old is an ancient document and proves  itself.
(ii) One who possesses land exclusively for.many years on the basis of a sale to him from his brother is in adverse possession, and may rebut the presumption that he holds on behalf of the brother.

Judgment

 

M. I. El Nur J. May 20, 1958 is a hopeless application for revision of the order issued by Province Judge, Northern Circuit, on March 1,1958 whereby he summarily dismissed the application by applicants for the revision of the decree passed by District Judge, Dongola, on December 12, 1957, in his CS-21-1953

The District Judge’s decree declared that respondents (plaintiffs), heirs of Abdel Aziz El Hag Mohamed, had acquired a prescriptive title to the twelve sahams registered in the names of applicants (defendants), heirs of El Amin  Abdel Karim, in Sagia 21, Irtidi. The claim to those twelve sahams was based by respondents on purchase by their father from the father of applicants in 1337 Higreya (1919), and on continuous occupation from that date by their father until 1947, when he died, and since his death by respondents as heirs until the date of suing.

Respondents produced the document whereby their father purchased the twelve sahams in dispute. All the witnesses to that sale were dead, except one who, owing to very old age, could not be brought before the court.

Applicants, while admitting the continuous occupation by respondents, and before them by their father, of the twelve sahams in dispute for the last forty years, contended that respondents’ father, who was the brother of their own father, was in possession on behalf of his brother, and that therefore respondents’ possession was not in their own right. They denied the alleged sale by their father.

The District Judge gave judgment in favour of respondents, not because he believed there was a purchase by their father of the twelve sahams in dispute, but because the possession by respondents’ father continued for a long time even in the lifetime of applicants’ father, and this in his opinion negatived the presumption that the possession by respondents’ father was on behalf of applicants’ father on account of that relationship.

On appeal to the Province Judge, the latter confirmed the view taken by the District Judge, and summarily’ dismissed the application for revision. That their decisions are correct there is not the least doubt. However, I do not agree with the District Judge that the sale of the twelve sahams in dispute by applicants’ father to respondents’ father could not be proved. Respondents produced the relevant document of sale. This document being an ancient document, free from suspicion, proves itself. This rule of evidence has been enunciated in the English Evidence Act 1938, S. 4.

The mere fact that respondents’ father possessed the twelve sahams in dispute since 1919 on the belief or allegation that they were sold to him by his brother, shows his intention to exclude others, including his brother, and this rebuts any presumption that he was in occupation on behalf of the registered owner.

In my view, therefore, respondents have established sufficient prescriptive title to those twelve sahams. The possession by their father, and by them since his death in 1947, has been adverse throughout the last forty years.

This application should, therefore, subject to the agreement of the Chief Justice, be summarily dismissed as hopeless.

M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. may  24, 1958:—Application is summarily dismissed.

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

HEIRS OF EL AMIN ABDEL KARIM v. HEIRS OF ABDEL AZIZ HAG MOHAMED

[Back]

 

 

Case No.:

AC-REV67-1958

Court:

Court of Appeal

Issue No.:

1964

 

Principles

·  Evidence—Ancient document—Deed over twenty years old proves itself

·  Prescription—Family relationship—Prescription and Limitation Ordinance 1928, s. 4 (3(

·  Presumption rebutted where purchaser of land held exclusively for many years on basis of sale

(i) A deed of sale over twenty years old is an ancient document and proves  itself.
(ii) One who possesses land exclusively for.many years on the basis of a sale to him from his brother is in adverse possession, and may rebut the presumption that he holds on behalf of the brother.

(i) A deed of sale over twenty years old is an ancient document and proves  itself.
(ii) One who possesses land exclusively for.many years on the basis of a sale to him from his brother is in adverse possession, and may rebut the presumption that he holds on behalf of the brother.

(i) A deed of sale over twenty years old is an ancient document and proves  itself.
(ii) One who possesses land exclusively for.many years on the basis of a sale to him from his brother is in adverse possession, and may rebut the presumption that he holds on behalf of the brother.

Judgment

(COURT OF APPEAL)

HEIRS OF EL AMIN ABDEL KARIM v. HEIRS OF ABDEL AZIZ

HAG MOHAMED

AC-REV67-1958

 

M. I. El Nur J. May 20, 1958 is a hopeless application for revision of the order issued by Province Judge, Northern Circuit, on March 1,1958 whereby he summarily dismissed the application by applicants for the revision of the decree passed by District Judge, Dongola, on December 12, 1957, in his CS-21-1953

The District Judge’s decree declared that respondents (plaintiffs), heirs of Abdel Aziz El Hag Mohamed, had acquired a prescriptive title to the twelve sahams registered in the names of applicants (defendants), heirs of El Amin  Abdel Karim, in Sagia 21, Irtidi. The claim to those twelve sahams was based by respondents on purchase by their father from the father of applicants in 1337 Higreya (1919), and on continuous occupation from that date by their father until 1947, when he died, and since his death by respondents as heirs until the date of suing.

Respondents produced the document whereby their father purchased the twelve sahams in dispute. All the witnesses to that sale were dead, except one who, owing to very old age, could not be brought before the court.

Applicants, while admitting the continuous occupation by respondents, and before them by their father, of the twelve sahams in dispute for the last forty years, contended that respondents’ father, who was the brother of their own father, was in possession on behalf of his brother, and that therefore respondents’ possession was not in their own right. They denied the alleged sale by their father.

The District Judge gave judgment in favour of respondents, not because he believed there was a purchase by their father of the twelve sahams in dispute, but because the possession by respondents’ father continued for a long time even in the lifetime of applicants’ father, and this in his opinion negatived the presumption that the possession by respondents’ father was on behalf of applicants’ father on account of that relationship.

On appeal to the Province Judge, the latter confirmed the view taken by the District Judge, and summarily’ dismissed the application for revision. That their decisions are correct there is not the least doubt. However, I do not agree with the District Judge that the sale of the twelve sahams in dispute by applicants’ father to respondents’ father could not be proved. Respondents produced the relevant document of sale. This document being an ancient document, free from suspicion, proves itself. This rule of evidence has been enunciated in the English Evidence Act 1938, S. 4.

The mere fact that respondents’ father possessed the twelve sahams in dispute since 1919 on the belief or allegation that they were sold to him by his brother, shows his intention to exclude others, including his brother, and this rebuts any presumption that he was in occupation on behalf of the registered owner.

In my view, therefore, respondents have established sufficient prescriptive title to those twelve sahams. The possession by their father, and by them since his death in 1947, has been adverse throughout the last forty years.

This application should, therefore, subject to the agreement of the Chief Justice, be summarily dismissed as hopeless.

M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. may  24, 1958:—Application is summarily dismissed.

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

 

HEIRS OF EL AMIN ABDEL KARIM v. HEIRS OF ABDEL AZIZ HAG MOHAMED

[Back]

 

 

Case No.:

AC-REV67-1958

Court:

Court of Appeal

Issue No.:

1964

 

Principles

·  Evidence—Ancient document—Deed over twenty years old proves itself

·  Prescription—Family relationship—Prescription and Limitation Ordinance 1928, s. 4 (3(

·  Presumption rebutted where purchaser of land held exclusively for many years on basis of sale

(i) A deed of sale over twenty years old is an ancient document and proves  itself.
(ii) One who possesses land exclusively for.many years on the basis of a sale to him from his brother is in adverse possession, and may rebut the presumption that he holds on behalf of the brother.

(i) A deed of sale over twenty years old is an ancient document and proves  itself.
(ii) One who possesses land exclusively for.many years on the basis of a sale to him from his brother is in adverse possession, and may rebut the presumption that he holds on behalf of the brother.

(i) A deed of sale over twenty years old is an ancient document and proves  itself.
(ii) One who possesses land exclusively for.many years on the basis of a sale to him from his brother is in adverse possession, and may rebut the presumption that he holds on behalf of the brother.

Judgment

(COURT OF APPEAL)

HEIRS OF EL AMIN ABDEL KARIM v. HEIRS OF ABDEL AZIZ

HAG MOHAMED

AC-REV67-1958

 

M. I. El Nur J. May 20, 1958 is a hopeless application for revision of the order issued by Province Judge, Northern Circuit, on March 1,1958 whereby he summarily dismissed the application by applicants for the revision of the decree passed by District Judge, Dongola, on December 12, 1957, in his CS-21-1953

The District Judge’s decree declared that respondents (plaintiffs), heirs of Abdel Aziz El Hag Mohamed, had acquired a prescriptive title to the twelve sahams registered in the names of applicants (defendants), heirs of El Amin  Abdel Karim, in Sagia 21, Irtidi. The claim to those twelve sahams was based by respondents on purchase by their father from the father of applicants in 1337 Higreya (1919), and on continuous occupation from that date by their father until 1947, when he died, and since his death by respondents as heirs until the date of suing.

Respondents produced the document whereby their father purchased the twelve sahams in dispute. All the witnesses to that sale were dead, except one who, owing to very old age, could not be brought before the court.

Applicants, while admitting the continuous occupation by respondents, and before them by their father, of the twelve sahams in dispute for the last forty years, contended that respondents’ father, who was the brother of their own father, was in possession on behalf of his brother, and that therefore respondents’ possession was not in their own right. They denied the alleged sale by their father.

The District Judge gave judgment in favour of respondents, not because he believed there was a purchase by their father of the twelve sahams in dispute, but because the possession by respondents’ father continued for a long time even in the lifetime of applicants’ father, and this in his opinion negatived the presumption that the possession by respondents’ father was on behalf of applicants’ father on account of that relationship.

On appeal to the Province Judge, the latter confirmed the view taken by the District Judge, and summarily’ dismissed the application for revision. That their decisions are correct there is not the least doubt. However, I do not agree with the District Judge that the sale of the twelve sahams in dispute by applicants’ father to respondents’ father could not be proved. Respondents produced the relevant document of sale. This document being an ancient document, free from suspicion, proves itself. This rule of evidence has been enunciated in the English Evidence Act 1938, S. 4.

The mere fact that respondents’ father possessed the twelve sahams in dispute since 1919 on the belief or allegation that they were sold to him by his brother, shows his intention to exclude others, including his brother, and this rebuts any presumption that he was in occupation on behalf of the registered owner.

In my view, therefore, respondents have established sufficient prescriptive title to those twelve sahams. The possession by their father, and by them since his death in 1947, has been adverse throughout the last forty years.

This application should, therefore, subject to the agreement of the Chief Justice, be summarily dismissed as hopeless.

M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. may  24, 1958:—Application is summarily dismissed.