TANG SING YU AND OTHERS v. TANG TAT KWONG AND OTHERS

TANG SING YU AND OTHERS v. TANG TAT KWONG AND OTHERS

On the evidence the court found it more probable that Tang Kee entered and occupied the land as a tenant with rent paid (established payments up to at least 1990 and likely until 1995), the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving uninterrupted adverse possession since March 1979, and therefore the plaintiffs' title was not extinguished; judgment for possession was entered for the plaintiffs and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

Citation
TANG SING YU AND OTHERS v. TANG TAT KWONG AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Tang Sing Yu; Plaintiff: Tang Wing Cheung; Plaintiff: Tang Wing Choy; 1st Defendant: Tang Tat Kwong; 1st Defendant (deceased): Tang Kee; 2nd Defendant: Law Wah
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 October 2004
Case Number
HCMP1466/1999
Procedural Posture
Possession Claim Over Lot No.337 (order 113 Application) / Judgment (high Court, Court of First Instance)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiffs for possession against Tang Tat Kwong and the estate of Tang Kee; 1st defendant's counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Possession, Adverse Possession, Tenancy, Limitation Ordinance S12(2), Forfeiture for Impugning Title
Source Language
EN
Property Adverse Possession Limitation Civil Procedure Equity Possession Tenancy Limitation Ordinance S12(2) +1 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tang Sing Yu

Plaintiff

Tang Wing Cheung

Plaintiff

Tang Wing Choy

Plaintiff

Tang Tat Kwong

1st Defendant

Tang Kee

1st Defendant (deceased)

Law Wah

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession Claim Over Lot No.337 (order 113 Application) / Judgment (high Court, Court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant established adverse possession extinguishing the plaintiffs' title
  2. 2 Whether the defendant occupied as tenant or as adverse possessor
  3. 3 Whether rent had been received such that the limitation period accrued from last receipt under Limitation Ordinance s12(2)

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the court found it more probable that Tang Kee entered and occupied the land as a tenant with rent paid (established payments up to at least 1990 and likely until 1995), the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving uninterrupted adverse possession since March 1979, and therefore the plaintiffs' title was not extinguished; judgment for possession was entered for the plaintiffs and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiffs for possession against Tang Tat Kwong and the estate of Tang Kee; 1st defendant's counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Dismissed the 1st defendant's counterclaim
  • Judgment for the plaintiffs for possession against Tang Tat Kwong and the estate of Tang Kee