ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.: (His lordship referred to the history of the case, examined the evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses, and continued: -)
From the foregoing examination of the evidence of the plaintiff and his two witnesses, it appears sufficiently clear that the sum-total of it falls very far short of establishing title. The trial-Court, in the light of that evidence alone and without regard even to the defendant’s evidence, was amply justified in finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that title to the land on which his claim to recovery of possession necessarily depended.
But even if the plaintiff’s family did have title to the land at all (which was strenuously denied by the defendant), it seems to me that, in any event, the admissions of the plaintiff and his two witnesses establish two situations, in either of which he is legally precluded from maintaining his claim. These admissions establish, as the first of these two situations, estoppel by acquiescence of condu…