Presc;ription-Period-Five years rule-Strict time requirement-Damages '"
lieu of possession

The rule that five years' possession of land based on an apparently
good title gives the person in possession a good title by prescription, mutt
be interpreted to mean that if the possession is just a few days short of the
required period the claim by prescription must fail,. although the judge may
elect to award the successful plaintiff damages in lieu of possession of the
land.

• Court: Bonham Carter, Acting J.C.

Appeal

August 21, 1907. Bonham Carter, Acting IC.: I find that
the plaintiffs have proved that the piece of land No. 1587 in Q,j.spute
was allotted to their mother Haga Shama bintBl Hag Mohammed
El Halabi and that the vendor purporting to sell this piece of land
to the defendants, described in the sale deed as Ayesha bint Mo-
hammed Agha and as the' heir of Hag Shama bint El Hag Mansur,
was in fact not the heir of Haga Shama bint El Hag Mohammed El
Halabi and had, no title to this piece of land. Who she was or
whether she ever existed has not been proved in this case. That
being so, judgment must be for the plaintiffs, unless the defendants
are able to show that the plaintiffs' rights have been barred by lapse
of time. The rule which we follow in the court is that five years
possession based on an apparently good title bars .a person's right to
land.' In this case, unfortunately for the defendants, .the plaintiffs
brought their claim, a few days within the five years after the sale.
Therefore they are not' barred. It is not necessary for me to decide
whether the defendant could claim to have bought under an apparently
good title. He very frankly stated the circumstances- under which the
sale was made: that he trusted entirely to Ahmed Ramzi, one of
the witnesses to the deed, that he never saw the person whose name
as the vendor is in the title deed, and that the, seal of the alleged
vendor was affixed by Ahmed Ramzi in the absence' of the alleged
vendor. However, I only mention these points. As the five years
not having elapsed from the date of the sale it is not necessary' to
decide whether or not he had a good apparent title.

Following the decision I gave in a similar case I shall not give
the plainitffs an 'order for possession of the land, but for compensa-

        tion for money.                .

The defendant put the land at a price of 80 m/ms per square
·feet. I think that is fair valuation and the compensation will be' at

1 The learned A/J.C. might have been referring to section 76 of the
Egyptian Native Civil Code which reads as follows: .'

"Ownership and real rights are acquired by a peaceable, public, aDd
uninterrupted possession by a person With 'an unamblgueus title ,of 0WDeI'-
ship, or a third person on his behalf, for the space of five·}'ears. if iha
possessor has a just title, and for fifteen years if the possessor us 110
such title."