CHEUNG KWAN HING v. CHEUNG SIN SUN IP MING CHU

CHEUNG KWAN HING v. CHEUNG SIN SUN IP MING CHU

The judge accepted the plaintiff's evidence and documentary leases as demonstrating that the southern sector of Lot 965 was enclosed and treated jointly with Lot 964 from about 1982, that the 1st defendant did not effectively assert or enforce title thereafter, and that the plaintiff possessed the land exclusively with animus possidendi such that the Limitation Ordinance extinguished the defendant's title and the plaintiff acquired an indefeasible possessory title (sufficient 12-year period post-1991 and continuous possession to 2014).

Citation
CHEUNG KWAN HING v. CHEUNG SIN SUN IP MING CHU
Parties
Plaintiff: Cheung Kwan Hing; 1st Defendant: Cheung Sin Sun; 2nd Defendant: Ip Ming Chu
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 November 2017
Case Number
HCA1000/2014
Procedural Posture
Land Title Dispute Adverse Possession / Judgment (court of First Instance, 30 November 2017)
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff. 1st defendant's counterclaim dismissed with costs. Claim against 2nd defendant dismissed (no costs in her favour).
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation Periods, Possessory Title, Declaration of Title, Possession Orders, Trespass, Removal of Structures, Evidence and Credibility
Source Language
EN
Property Law Adverse Possession Limitation Land Registration Civil Procedure Limitation Periods Possessory Title Declaration of Title +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheung Kwan Hing

Plaintiff

Cheung Sin Sun

1st Defendant

Ip Ming Chu

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Title Dispute Adverse Possession / Judgment (court of First Instance, 30 November 2017)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff established factual possession and animus possidendi over the disputed portion of Lot 965
  2. 2 Whether the requisite limitation period was satisfied (20 years pre-1991 or 12 years post-1991) to extinguish the registered title
  3. 3 Whether the 1st defendant retained effective possession or had waived rent and abandoned claims

Ratio Decidendi

The judge accepted the plaintiff's evidence and documentary leases as demonstrating that the southern sector of Lot 965 was enclosed and treated jointly with Lot 964 from about 1982, that the 1st defendant did not effectively assert or enforce title thereafter, and that the plaintiff possessed the land exclusively with animus possidendi such that the Limitation Ordinance extinguished the defendant's title and the plaintiff acquired an indefeasible possessory title (sufficient 12-year period post-1991 and continuous possession to 2014).

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff. 1st defendant's counterclaim dismissed with costs. Claim against 2nd defendant dismissed (no costs in her favour).

Orders

  • Declaration that the 1st defendant’s title to the Portion of Lot No 965 shown in yellow on Plan 2 is extinguished pursuant to sections 7 and 17 of the Limitation Ordinance Cap 347
  • Declaration that the plaintiff has acquired an indefeasible possessory title to the said Portion of Lot No 965 to be registered at the Land Registry