TSM Development v Pereira: Adverse Possession & Land Title Extinguishment

In TSM Development Pte Ltd v Leonard Stephanie Celine nee Pereira, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal regarding whether TSM Development's title to a strip of land had been extinguished by adverse possession by Pereira. The High Court initially ruled in favor of Pereira, but the Court of Appeal reversed this decision, holding that because the land was registered as of March 1, 1994, and Pereira did not apply for a possessory title within six months of that date, her claim failed. The court allowed the appeal and declared that TSM Development's title to the disputed strip had not been extinguished.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Court of Appeal held that Pereira's adverse possession claim failed because she did not apply for possessory title within the statutory timeframe.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
TSM Development Pte LtdAppellantCorporationAppeal allowedWon
Leonard Stephanie Celine nee PereiraRespondentIndividualAppeal dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Lai Kew ChaiJudgeNo
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Hee Theng FongHee Theng Fong and Co
Paul TanHee Theng Fong and Co
Tay Wee ChongHee Theng Fong and Co
Gan Hiang ChyeKhattar Wong
Ang Keng LingKhattar Wong

4. Facts

  1. The appellant acquired 45 Cotswold Close in December 2002.
  2. The respondent owns the adjacent property, 43 Cotswold Close.
  3. A fence between the properties was incorrectly erected, placing a strip of No 45 within the compound of No 43.
  4. The respondent and her husband used the disputed strip as part of their garden since 1971.
  5. The appellant discovered the encroachment in September 2003 via a topographical survey.
  6. No 45 was brought under the Land Titles Act in March 1985.
  7. The respondent did not apply for a possessory title within six months of March 1, 1994.

5. Formal Citations

  1. TSM Development Pte Ltd v Leonard Stephanie Celine nee Pereira, CA 118/2004, [2005] SGCA 41

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Braddell Heights Estate developed.
Chang Hoi Phin purchased No 43 from BHE Ltd.
Lalwani sold No 45 to Chua Chee Ming.
Chua Chee Ming sold No 45 to Chua Fond Nam and two others.
The fence between No 43 and No 45 was erected.
CFN sold No 45 to Chee Hoe Hong (Private) Limited.
Chang sold No 43 to Edward George Leonard.
Leonard and the respondent moved into No 43.
A qualified title was issued for No 43.
No 45 was brought under the Land Titles Act.
CHH Ltd sold No 45 to Roy and Carol Eapen.
Land Titles Act 1993 came into operation.
The Eapens sold and transferred No 45 to the appellant.
Edward George Leonard passed away.
Appellant commissioned a topographical survey.
Transfer of No 43 to the respondent was registered.
Caution on the certificate of title for No 43 was cancelled.
Caution on the certificate of title of No 45 was cancelled.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Adverse Possession
    • Outcome: The court held that the respondent's claim of adverse possession failed because she did not comply with the statutory requirements of applying for a possessory title within the prescribed timeframe.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Extinguishment of title
      • Possessory title
      • Statutory requirements for adverse possession
  2. Land Title Extinguishment
    • Outcome: The court held that the appellant's title to the disputed strip had not been extinguished by the respondent's adverse possession because the respondent failed to apply for a possessory title within the statutory timeframe after the land was registered.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Effect of Land Titles Act on adverse possession
      • Qualified title
      • Cancellation of caution

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that title to the disputed strip has not been extinguished
  2. Declaration that the respondent has acquired title to the disputed strip by adverse possession

9. Cause of Actions

  • Declaration that title to land has not been extinguished by adverse possession
  • Counterclaim for declaration of acquired title by adverse possession

10. Practice Areas

  • Real Estate Litigation
  • Property Disputes

11. Industries

  • Real Estate
  • Property Development

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Balwant Singh v Double L & T Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1996] 2 SLR 726SingaporeDiscusses the effect of the 1993 Land Titles Act on adverse possession claims, particularly concerning unregistered land and the preservation of possessory rights.
Tan Eng Khiam v Ultra Realty Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1991] SLR798SingaporeDeals with adverse possession where the land was brought under the Land Titles Act with a qualified title, and the need to protect possessory title by lodging a caveat.
Wong Kok Chin v Mah Ten Kui JosephCourt of AppealYes[1992] 2 SLR 161SingaporeConcerns a fence encroachment and whether a reassertion of ownership can destroy an interest obtained by adverse possession. It highlights the policy of the Land Titles Act in applying the Limitation Act to registered land.
Lo Sook Ling Adela v Au Mei Yin ChristinaCourt of AppealYes[2002] 1 SLR 408SingaporeCase referred to a passage from Balwant Singh.
Tan Siok Gek v Ng Kim NeoHigh CourtYes[1997] 2 SLR 691SingaporeDiscusses the applicability of section 50 of the new Land Titles Act when title by adverse possession was acquired before the land was brought under the Torrens system.
Shell Eastern Petroleum (Pte) Ltd v Goh Chor CheokHigh CourtYes[2000] 1 SLR 45SingaporeConcerns adverse possession where a retaining wall encroached on the plaintiff's land, and the court considered whether the plaintiff was barred from reviving its title.
Ho Lam Phoh v Tan Swee BengCourt of AppealYes[1998] 3 SLR 629SingaporeDeals with the application of sections 172(7) and 172(8) of the 1993 Land Titles Act and whether the defendants had 12 years of adverse possession under the common law system.
Liwen Holdings Pte Ltd v Ng Ker SanHigh CourtYes[2001] 2 SLR 533SingaporeDiscusses whether adverse possessors' claim could be defeated by a bona fide purchaser under the new Land Titles Act.
Fones Christina v Cheong Eng Khoon RolandHigh CourtYes[2005] SGHC 87SingaporeThe court held that the plaintiff’s title to the strip of land in issue was extinguished by the operation of the Limitation Ordinance.
Gibbs v MesserPrivy CouncilYes[1891] AC 248United KingdomReference was made by the judge to Gibbs v Messer [1891] AC 248 at 254.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 1994 Rev Ed)Singapore
Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 1994 Rev Ed)Singapore
Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 1994 Rev Ed)Singapore
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Adverse possession
  • Land Titles Act
  • Registered land
  • Unregistered land
  • Possessory title
  • Qualified title
  • Extinguishment of title
  • Limitation Act
  • Caveat
  • Caution
  • Indefeasibility of title
  • Encroachment
  • Disputed strip

15.2 Keywords

  • Adverse possession
  • Land Titles Act
  • Singapore
  • Property law
  • Real estate
  • Land
  • Title
  • Extinguishment
  • Registered land
  • Unregistered land

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Adverse Possession95
Land Law90
Property Law90
Limitation60
Estoppel40

16. Subjects

  • Land Law
  • Property Law
  • Adverse Possession