In considering whether the appellant had interest in the land, the court held that the trial magistrate rightly held that the appellant owned the suit land and had interest through inheritance.
The court then considered whether the trial court erred in holding that the appellant had given away the suit land to the respondents. The court held that the trial magistrate erred in finding that all the suit land belonged to the respondent. The court found that the appellant had given the respondents only a portion of the suit land for construction of a dip-tank. The court found that the respondents were in trespass of the appellant’s land.
The court considered whether the trial court erred in failing to consider that the suit land reverted to the appellant when the respondents stopped utilizing the dip-tank on the suit land. The court held that the portion of the suit land given out by the appellant did not revert to the appellant as the portion was given for an endless period.
Consequently, the court set aside the lower court’s judgment and allowed the appeal.