TANG SENG AND ANOTHER v. TANG KUEN KWAI AND ANOTHER

TANG SENG AND ANOTHER v. TANG KUEN KWAI AND ANOTHER

Judge accepted plaintiffs' surveyor demarcation of Lot 951 but found on the facts that the 1st defendant and his family had exclusive, continuous possession of the orange and indigo enclosed area since 1967, satisfying factual possession and animus under Pye; the New Territories Leases (Extension) Ordinance did not defeat ongoing possession; therefore plaintiffs' claim against 1st defendant dismissed and 1st defendant's adverse possession counterclaim succeeds, extinguishing plaintiffs' title to that part under section 17 Limitation Ordinance.

Citation
TANG SENG AND ANOTHER v. TANG KUEN KWAI AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Tang Seng; 2nd Plaintiff: Au Mui Mui and Tang Seng (personal representatives of Tang Ki Pui, deceased); 1st Defendant: Tang Kuen Kwai; 2nd Defendant: Tang Yuk Lun
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 January 2004
Case Number
DCCJ16533/2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Land Dispute (trespass/adverse Possession) / Judgment at Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim against 1st defendant dismissed on adverse possession ground; counterclaim allowed and declared that plaintiffs' title to the orange and indigo part of Lot 951 is extinguished by 1st defendant's adverse possession.
Legal Topics
Demarcation, Trespass, Adverse Possession, Limitation Ordinance, Survey Evidence, Costs
Source Language
EN
Property Land Law Adverse Possession Boundary Dispute Civil Procedure Demarcation Trespass Limitation Ordinance +2 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tang Seng

1st Plaintiff

Au Mui Mui and Tang Seng (personal representatives of Tang Ki Pui, deceased)

2nd Plaintiff

Tang Kuen Kwai

1st Defendant

Tang Yuk Lun

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Land Dispute (trespass/adverse Possession) / Judgment at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Correct location and boundary of Lot No.951 in D.D.125 (demarcation)
  2. 2 Alleged trespass/encroachment by Lots 2167 and 2266 and associated structures
  3. 3 1st defendant's counterclaim for adverse possession of enclosed area

Ratio Decidendi

Judge accepted plaintiffs' surveyor demarcation of Lot 951 but found on the facts that the 1st defendant and his family had exclusive, continuous possession of the orange and indigo enclosed area since 1967, satisfying factual possession and animus under Pye; the New Territories Leases (Extension) Ordinance did not defeat ongoing possession; therefore plaintiffs' claim against 1st defendant dismissed and 1st defendant's adverse possession counterclaim succeeds, extinguishing plaintiffs' title to that part under section 17 Limitation Ordinance.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim against 1st defendant dismissed on adverse possession ground; counterclaim allowed and declared that plaintiffs' title to the orange and indigo part of Lot 951 is extinguished by 1st defendant's adverse possession.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' claim against 1st defendant dismissed in respect of the orange and indigo area shown on the annexed plan
  • Declaration under section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance that plaintiffs' title to that part of Lot No.951 is extinguished by 1st defendant's adverse possession