TSM Development v Pereira: Adverse Possession Claim under Land Titles Act

In TSM Development Pte Ltd v Leonard Stephanie Celine nee Pereira, the High Court of Singapore dismissed TSM Development's application and granted Leonard Stephanie Celine nee Pereira's cross-application, declaring that she had been in continuous adverse possession of the disputed land. The court held that Pereira's adverse possession had extinguished TSM Development's rights to the land under the Limitation Act.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed and cross-application granted.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Adverse possession claim by Pereira against TSM Development. Court declared Pereira had continuous adverse possession, extinguishing TSM's rights.

1.7 Decision Date

28 February 2005

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
TSM Development Pte Ltd	Plaintiff, Appellant	Corporation	Application dismissed	Lost	Hee Theng Fong of Hee Theng Fong and Co Paul Tan of Hee Theng Fong and Co
Leonard Stephanie Celine nee Pereira	Defendant, Respondent	Individual	Cross-application granted	Won	Gan Hiang Chye of Khattar Wong and Partners Ang Keng Ling of Khattar Wong and Partners

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lai Siu Chiu	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Hee Theng Fong	Hee Theng Fong and Co
Paul Tan	Hee Theng Fong and Co
Gan Hiang Chye	Khattar Wong and Partners
Ang Keng Ling	Khattar Wong and Partners

4. Facts

The defendant and her husband occupied the land in dispute since 1971.
The land in dispute was between the legal boundary of 43 and 45 Cotswold Close.
The plaintiff purchased 45 Cotswold Close on 23 December 2002.
The defendant's property, 43 Cotswold Close, adjoins 45 Cotswold Close.
The plaintiff's surveyor found that the fence was not on the legal boundary.
The defendant claimed adverse possession for the past 30 years.
The land was brought under the Land Titles Act in 1985.

5. Formal Citations

TSM Development Pte Ltd v Leonard Stephanie Celine nee Pereira, OS 925/2004, [2005] SGHC 42

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1950-01-01	Braddell Heights Estate developed.
1951-01-01	No 45 Cotswold Drive sold to Bhermul Atmaram Lalwani.
1951-01-01	No 43 Cotswold Drive sold to Chang Hoi Phin.
1963-01-01	Lalwani sold No 45 to Chua Chee Ming.
1968-01-01	Chua Chee Ming sold No 45 to Chua Fond Nam, Helen Wan Moon Yeen & Wang Yuen Ngian.
1971-01-01	Chua Fond Nam and co-owners sold No 45 to Chee Hoe Hong (Private) Limited.
1971-04-03	Chang Hoi Phin sold No 43 to Edward George Leonard.
1972-06-01	Photographs taken of No 43.
1973-09-01	Balwant Singh went into uninterrupted possession of the disputed lot.
1974-06-24	The appellants’ property was converted to registered land.
1976-05-08	A qualified certificate of title was issued for No 43.
1983-01-01	Defendant completed 12 years of adverse possession.
1984-06-20	Tan’s property was converted to registered land.
1985-03-23	No 45 brought under the Land Titles Act.
1988-06-10	The appellant was notified that his title to the encroached land had been extinguished.
1988-06-16	The respondent erected a new fence in the same position as the previous fence.
1988-06-23	The appellant lodged a notice of reassertion of ownership.
1988-06-27	The respondent lodged a caveat against the appellant’s property.
1989-01-01	The company sold No 45 to Roy and Carol Eapen.
1993-12-17	Thulasi obtained a consent judgment against the estate of Dr V K Samy.
1993-12-22	Thulasi conveyed Lot 235-25 to Double L & T Pte Ltd.
1994-03-01	Land Titles Act came into effect.
1994-06-20	Lot 235-25 was brought under the provisions of the Act.
1995-02-17	Balwant lodged a caveat against Lot 235-25.
1997-01-01	Plaintiffs commenced Originating Summons No 827 of 1997 against the defendants.
2002-08-29	Eapens' option to purchase dated.
2002-12-23	The Eapens sold No 45 to TSM Development Pte Ltd.
2003-04-08	Edward George Leonard passed away.
2003-09-01	Plaintiff arranged for a boundary map to be made of No 45.
2003-09-12	Plaintiff wrote to Leonard to inform him of the unlawful encroachment.
2003-12-03	No 43 transferred to the defendant.
2003-12-03	The caution on the certificate of title was cancelled.
2003-12-10	Defendant's solicitors claimed adverse possession.
2003-12-23	Caution on the certificate of title for No 45 was cancelled.
2004-01-14	Plaintiff's solicitors rejected the claim of adverse possession.
2004-07-16	Plaintiff's affidavit filed.
2004-01-01	Photographs taken of No 43.
2004-01-01	Plaintiff filed the application.
2004-01-01	Plaintiff has appealed against my decision (in Civil Appeal No 118 of 2004).
2005-03-01	Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

Adverse Possession
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant had established continuous adverse possession, extinguishing the plaintiff's title to the land.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1996] 2 SLR 726
  - [2001] 2 SLR 533
  - [1998] 3 SLR 629
  - [2000] 1 SLR 45
  - [1997] 2 SLR 691
  - [2002] 1 SLR 408
  - [1992] 2 SLR 161

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration that the land is not subject to adverse possession
Possession of the land
Injunction to restrain the defendant from using the land
Removal of the fence and brick wall
Mesne profits and/or damages
Interests
Costs

9. Cause of Actions

Adverse Possession
Trespass

10. Practice Areas

Real Estate Law
Property Law

11. Industries

Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Balwant Singh v Double L & T Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 2 SLR 726	Singapore	Cited for the principles regarding adverse possession claims under the Land Titles Act and the effect of the 1993 amendments.
Liwen Holdings Pte Ltd v Ng Ker San	High Court	Yes	[2001] 2 SLR 533	Singapore	Cited as following the principles established in Balwant Singh regarding adverse possession.
Ho Lam Phoh v Tan Swee Beng	Court of Appeal	No	[1998] 3 SLR 629	Singapore	Distinguished on the facts; cited regarding adverse possession claims and the requirements under the Land Titles Act.
Shell Eastern Petroleum (Pte) Ltd v Goh Chor Cheok	High Court	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR 45	Singapore	Cited regarding the effect of adverse possession on registered land and the need for a caveat.
Tan Siok Gek v Ng Kim Neo	High Court	Yes	[1997] 2 SLR 691	Singapore	Cited regarding the acquisition of interest by adverse possession before land is brought under the Land Titles Act.
Lo Sook Ling Adela v Au Mei Yin Christina	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2002] 1 SLR 408	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the new law does not affect title already acquired by adverse possession.
Wong Kok Chin v Mah Ten Kui Joseph	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 2 SLR 161	Singapore	Cited regarding the rights of an adverse possessor and the purpose of lodging a caveat.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 1994 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 1985 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Land Titles Act 1993 (Act No 27 of 1993)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Adverse possession
Land Titles Act
Registered land
Qualified certificate of title
Limitation Act
Possessory title
Encroachment
Indefeasible title

15.2 Keywords

Adverse possession
Land Titles Act
Singapore
Property
Real estate

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Adverse Possession	98
Property Law	95
Land Law	90
Land Titles Act	85
Limitation	75
Caveats	70
Estoppel	60

16. Subjects

Land
Adverse Possession
Property Law