Prashar & Anor v Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

The Adjudicator erred in accepting Mr Bingham’s Front Fit Plan, which was inconsistent with the 1937 Conveyances. The correct boundary line is as shown on Mr Jackson’s Plan, which matches the conveyance dimensions and historical evidence. Alteration of the file plan to reflect this does not constitute rectification and is permissible.

Parties: Appellant/respondent: Sandeep Prashar; Appellant/respondent: Vasanti Rajenda Patel; Respondent/applicant: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 20 July 2012
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Judgment
Outcome: appeal allowed
Legal Topics: Boundary Disputes, Rectification of Land Register, Interpretation of Conveyances

Property Law Land Registration Boundary Disputes Rectification of Land Register Interpretation of Conveyances

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2

Parties

Sandeep Prashar

Appellant/respondent

Vasanti Rajenda Patel

Appellant/respondent

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Adjudicator erred in determining the boundary line between the parties' properties
2 Whether alteration of the file plan amounts to impermissible rectification under Schedule 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

Chief Land Registrar to alter the file plan to reflect the boundary as shown on Mr Jackson’s Plan