Prashar & Anor v Tunbridge Wells Borough Council [2012] EWHC 1734 (Ch) (20 July 2012)

Prashar & Anor v Tunbridge Wells Borough Council [2012] EWHC 1734 (Ch) (20 July 2012)

The Adjudicator erred in accepting Mr Bingham's Front Fit Plan as consistent with the 1937 Conveyances. The only plans consistent with the conveyances are Mr Jackson's Plan or Mr Bingham's Rear Fit Plan, which accurately reflect the boundary as intended in 1937. The alteration of the file plan to reflect this does not amount to rectification and no exceptional circumstances justify refusing the alteration.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1734 (Ch)
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
Land Registration, Boundary Disputes, Rectification of Register
Property Law Land Registration Boundary Disputes Rectification of Register

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandeep Prashar

Appellant/respondent

Vasanti Rajenda Patel

Appellant/respondent

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator erred in determining the boundary line between the parties' properties as shown on Mr Bingham's Front Fit Plan rather than Mr Jackson's Plan or Mr Bingham's Rear Fit Plan
  2. 2 Whether alteration of the file plan amounts to rectification under Schedule 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002 and if so, whether exceptional circumstances justify not making the alteration

Ratio Decidendi

The Adjudicator erred in accepting Mr Bingham's Front Fit Plan as consistent with the 1937 Conveyances. The only plans consistent with the conveyances are Mr Jackson's Plan or Mr Bingham's Rear Fit Plan, which accurately reflect the boundary as intended in 1937. The alteration of the file plan to reflect this does not amount to rectification and no exceptional circumstances justify refusing the alteration.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Chief Land Registrar to alter the file plan of the relevant titles to reflect the boundary as identified by Mr Jackson's Plan