2*;
2. In the suit, the defendants contenfied _V’1?x;j:-eve
beaeme the abseiute owners of the preperty efiadvefsa.
pessessicsn. Wrsen the matter was posted feérl ‘
the péaintiff, an appiicatien was flied’ fer a§fsevfé’dmentv’imed e}
Ruie 1? CFC stating that by ever ee ae gegeaeed ee
ownership of the property. eat czriginal
titie deed to shew that he the preperty.
Accardingiy, produc1e’d”iE$§eV re%g;stes¥ea %se:Vee%’eeee cf the years 1956,
1957 and 1994,. eee[ine;eeeeeeeemte owner of the land
ex; virtue of eeeficetsen is rejected by the
ceurt beécw. VV%”€;f2e!:en9:¥’%h§_#;je’ fi1″e:.:’:f5;a:fi%e, the present writ Fetitien is
med. n T’ % A V
..e§.&I”‘%§i’a”x,,;%..efzea;d t?x$éV£’E&*£?r:ed counseé fer the parties.
“”4.”‘ eexftentéen cf the respencseet-piesnmr is that the
.:e’e:eneeete he§;:ee”ea?-nittee the ownemhép ef the piesntrrr arsd meee
” «:éi£;’V’a§iempt tizgiaim adverse possesséon, cannot be pennézted to set
V *eee iiise .b§.-‘virtue of the sate deeds. As a defendants, :2 £3 eeers fer
‘efieffgfidants ta raise a divergent defence.
(V