Fones Christina v Cheong Eng Khoon Roland: Adverse Possession Claim on Registered Land
In Fones Christina v Cheong Eng Khoon Roland, the High Court of Singapore heard a claim by Fones Christina for a declaration that she was entitled to possession of a strip of land, arguing that Cheong Eng Khoon Roland had no right to it by adverse possession. Cheong counterclaimed that he had acquired title to the land through adverse possession prior to its conversion to registered land. The court dismissed Fones' claim and declared that Cheong was entitled to adverse possession of the strip of land.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Claim dismissed. Declaration made in defendant’s favour.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Fones Christina sues Cheong Eng Khoon Roland over adverse possession of land. The court dismissed Fones' claim, ruling in favor of Cheong's adverse possession.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fones Christina | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Cheong Eng Khoon Roland | Defendant | Individual | Declaration made in defendant’s favour | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Khoo Boo Jin | Wee Swee Teow and Co |
| Marina Chin | Tan Kok Quan Partnership |
4. Facts
- The plaintiff owns property at 12 Toronto Road, and the defendant owns property at 10 Toronto Road.
- The plaintiff became the owner of 12 Toronto Road on 14 September 1966.
- The defendant became the owner of 10 Toronto Road in April 1991; his father owned it since May 1960.
- A fence was constructed along the top of a slope between the two properties, not along the legal boundary line.
- The strip of land in issue is the portion of the slope between the fence and the legal boundary line.
- The defendant claimed adverse possession of the strip of land based on possession prior to 20 December 1966.
- The plaintiff made a successful claim by way of adverse possession on a narrow strip of land on the other side of No 12 in 1997.
5. Formal Citations
- Fones Christina v Cheong Eng Khoon Roland, OS 1314/2004, [2005] SGHC 87
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Emile Le Mercier acquired No 10. | |
| Government authorities created field sketches. | |
| Cheong Chee Hock acquired No 10. | |
| Fones Christina became the owner of No 12. | |
| No 12 was brought under the Land Titles Act. | |
| Cheong Eng Khoon Roland became the owner of No 10. | |
| Land Titles Act 1993 came into force. | |
| Fones Christina made a successful claim by way of adverse possession on a narrow strip of land on the other side of No 12. | |
| The Certificate of Title for No 12 became unqualified. | |
| Cheong Eng Khoon Roland instructed surveyors to survey the boundary between the two properties. | |
| Fones Christina wrote a letter to Cheong Eng Khoon Roland requesting written confirmation that he would not object to moving the fence. | |
| Fones Christina's solicitors wrote to Cheong Eng Khoon Roland repeating the request for written confirmation. | |
| Cheong Eng Khoon Roland indicated in writing that he was entitled to the strip of land in issue by way of adverse possession. | |
| Originating Summons was filed. | |
| Cheong Eng Khoon Roland lodged a caveat claiming an interest in the strip of land in issue by virtue of having acquired title by way of adverse possession. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Adverse Possession
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant had established adverse possession of the strip of land in issue.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Continuous possession
- Open possession
- Exclusive possession
- Intention to possess
- Retrospective Application of Section 50 of the Land Titles Act
- Outcome: The court held that section 50 of the Land Titles Act did not apply retrospectively to adverse possession that had already crystallised before the land was brought under the Land Titles Act.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the strip of land
- Declaration that the defendant has no right, title or interest in the strip of land by adverse possession
9. Cause of Actions
- Declaration of Title
- Adverse Possession
10. Practice Areas
- Real Estate Law
- Property Law
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jubilee Electronics Pte Ltd v Tai Wah Garments & Knitting Factory Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR 39 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that adverse possession may be established by aggregation of separate periods by different persons so long as there is continuity between the said periods. |
| Balwant Singh v Double L & T Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | No | [1996] 2 SLR 726 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of the Land Titles Act 1993 regarding adverse possession claims, but distinguished because the defendant's possessory title had already crystallised before No 12 was brought under the provisions of the 1956 Land Titles Ordinance. |
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 Ordinance 1956 (No 21 of 1956) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Adverse possession
- Land Titles Act
- Registered land
- Limitation Ordinance
- Possessory title
- Strip of land
- Physical boundary
- Legal boundary
15.2 Keywords
- Adverse possession
- Land dispute
- Singapore
- Property law
- Real estate
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Adverse Possession | 99 |
| Property Law | 95 |
| Land Law | 90 |
| Limitation | 60 |
| Estoppel | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Property Law
- Real Estate
- Land Dispute