Case No.:

(NPC.Revision.111.1959).

Court:

Province Court

Issue No.:

1960

Principles

·  Land law—Prescription—Prescriptive title acquired before settlement defeat.r title of settled owners

The plaintiff brought an action claiming the title to 4 uds in share 13 sagia No. 48 El Guba Village, Shendi District, alleging that he had been in public peaceable a uninterrupted possession since 1927. The defendants, the registered owners of the land, contended that no such prescriptive title could be acquired over the land since it had been settled and registered in their names in 1953
Held: The plaintiff acquired a prescriptive title over the land and the settlement decision was not a bar to the plaintiff’s claim. A settlement deci sion is not a bar to a claim for prescriptive title over the settled land, which title had been acquired before thS settlement or was in the course of, being acquired during the settlement.
 
Awad El Karim El Shafei v, Mohamed Ahmed Taha (DPC.Revision-49-1957) followed.
Heirs of El Hag Dafalla v. Heirs of Mohamed Ahmed All (DPC-Revision 48-1957) cited.
Note by Nur I. in NPC-Revision-8o-56 followed

Judgment

(PROVINCE COURT)

HEIRS OF EL NAYYAL ABDALLA v. ABDALLA ABDALLA IDRIS

(NPC.Revision.111.1959).

Revision

October 6, 1959. Osman El Tayeb, P.J:. —This is an application for revision from the decree of District Judge El Darner dated June 17, 1959, in his CS-197-1954 granting plaintiff and respondent declaration of prescrip tive title in respect of 4 uds in share 13 sagia No. 48 El Guba Village of Shendi District. This land was first settled and registered in 1953; the share claimed is part of a share comprising 13 uds registered by the settlement in the name of defendants and applicants. The plaintiff’s case is that he has been in possession of these 4 uds since 1927, that he possessed it peaceably, publicly and without interruption. The evidence proved that he used to cultivate it by administrative allotments that used to be made from time to time. Defendants admit that plaintiff has been cultivating 4 uds in sagia 48, but they contend that they are not in their share of 13 uds. This contention cannot be substantiated. It is clear that according to the division of the shares on the ground, not on the plan, the 4 uds of plaintiff are in this same share of defendants. Defendants also oppose the claim on the ground that the land was settled and registered for the first time in 1953 and that this settlement gave them a title, in particular against any right that might have been obtained by plaintiff. This same point was discussed in Heirs of El Hag Dafalla v. Heirs of Mohamed Ahmed Ali (DPC/Rev/48/1957) and Awad El Karim El Shafei v. Mohamed Ahmed Taha (DPC/Rev/49/1957)

In the first of these two cases I expressed some doubt as to whether a claimant can succeed in establishing prescriptive title acquired before the settlement or in the course of being acquired during the settlement. This doubt was not apparent in the second case, in which I relied on a note written by Nur J. in NPC/Rev/8o/56, in which the honourable judge said:

“I do not think and the Honourable the Chief Justice agrees with me that the decision of the Settlement Officer of 1951 is a bar to applicants’ claim by prescription.”

In this case plaintiff succeeded in establishing long adverse possession prior to the settlement in 1953,he acquired prescriptive title, and he is entitled to adeclaration accordingly. Application for revision is summarily dismissed.

                                                             (Application summarily dismissed)