CHAN CHU HANG ARDEN and Others v. MAN YUN SAU

CHAN CHU HANG ARDEN and Others v. MAN YUN SAU

The requisition as to the 1935 mortgage was not sufficiently answered because the vendor's solicitors merely asserted no mortgage deed existed without disclosing the evidential basis; a possessory title is not equivalent to the good title contracted for under Clause 6(a) and s.13 CPO; the ex parte Order against a deceased registered owner does not bind the estate and cannot alone establish possessory title; vendor failed to deduce title in accordance with s.13(1)(a); therefore relief in the originating summons is granted and interest and costs ordered.

Citation
CHAN CHU HANG ARDEN and Others v. MAN YUN SAU
Parties
Plaintiff/purchaser: Chan Chu Hang Arden; Defendant/vendor: Defendant (Vendor)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 April 1997
Case Number
HCMP202/1997
Procedural Posture
Vendor and Purchaser Summons Under Section 12 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance, Cap.219 / High Court Miscellaneous Proceedings — Judgment
Outcome
Order made in terms of paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the originating summons; interest and costs ordered.
Legal Topics
Good Title, Possessory Title, Vendor and Purchaser Requisitions, Root of Title (s.13 Cpo), Production of Title Deeds, Ex Parte Court Order, Adverse Possession, Limitation Ordinance
Source Language
EN
Conveyancing Property Law Contract Civil Procedure Good Title Possessory Title Vendor and Purchaser Requisitions Root of Title (s.13 Cpo) +4 more

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chan Chu Hang Arden

Plaintiff/purchaser

Defendant (Vendor)

Defendant/vendor

Procedural Posture

Vendor and Purchaser Summons Under Section 12 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance, Cap.219 / High Court Miscellaneous Proceedings — Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendor sufficiently answered requisition to produce the 1935 mortgage deed
  2. 2 Whether a possessory or marketable/holding title is equivalent to a good title contracted for under Clause 6(a) and s.13 CPO
  3. 3 Whether an ex parte court order against a deceased registered owner can establish possessory title binding the estate

Ratio Decidendi

The requisition as to the 1935 mortgage was not sufficiently answered because the vendor's solicitors merely asserted no mortgage deed existed without disclosing the evidential basis; a possessory title is not equivalent to the good title contracted for under Clause 6(a) and s.13 CPO; the ex parte Order against a deceased registered owner does not bind the estate and cannot alone establish possessory title; vendor failed to deduce title in accordance with s.13(1)(a); therefore relief in the originating summons is granted and interest and costs ordered.

Court Disposition

Order made in terms of paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the originating summons; interest and costs ordered.

Orders

  • Order in terms of paras.2-7 of the originating summons
  • Interest on deposit of $192,000 at 10% per annum from 16 September 1996 until payment