City Developments Ltd v Estate of Syed Allowee: Adverse Possession of Unregistered Land

City Developments Ltd sought a declaration in the High Court of Singapore that it was entitled to a strip of unregistered land through adverse possession. The plaintiff claimed that it and its predecessors had been in adverse possession for a continuous period of 12 years prior to 1 March 1994, extinguishing the rights of the defendant, Syed Allowee Bin Ally Aljunied, the last known owner. Tay Yong Kwang J allowed the plaintiff's application, holding that the plaintiff was the rightful owner of the plot by adverse possession.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

City Developments Ltd claimed adverse possession of unregistered land. The court found that the plaintiff had established adverse possession through its predecessors.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Harun Bin Syed Hussain Aljunied @ Harun AljuniedOtherIndividualClaim DismissedLost
City Developments LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Estate of Syed Allowee bin Ally Aljunied, deceasedDefendantTrustClaim DismissedLost
Syed Noah AljuniedOtherIndividualNeutralNeutral
Sharifah Fatimah Binte Abdul Kader AljuniedOtherIndividualClaim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tay Yong KwangJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Leslie NettoNetto & Magin LLC
Bevin NettoNetto & Magin LLC
Kenneth PereiraAllen & Gledhill LLP
Rajaram Muralli RajaAllen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

  1. City Developments Ltd sought possessory title of a strip of unregistered land.
  2. The plaintiff claimed adverse possession through its predecessors for 12 years before 1 March 1994.
  3. The plot was enclosed by a chain link fence since 1971.
  4. The plaintiff purchased the property in 1999 and discovered the plot was also enclosed.
  5. Syed Allowee was the last known owner of the plot listed in the Registry of Titles.
  6. Interested parties claimed to be trustees of the Aljunied trust with an interest in the plot.
  7. A report indicated that the beneficial interest of the plot rested with four individuals.

5. Formal Citations

  1. City Developments Ltd v Estate of Syed Allowee bin Ally Aljunied, deceased, OS 126/2008, [2008] SGHC 237

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Lee Jit Seam purchased neighbouring plot.
Lot 307 purchased.
KLH in possession of the property.
Lot 309 purchased.
Land Titles Act 1993 enacted.
Land Titles Act 1993 came into effect.
Originating summons 119 of 1996 filed.
Condominium built on neighbouring plot.
Originating summons 69 of 1998 filed.
City Developments Ltd purchased property from KLH.
City Developments Ltd discovered the fence also enclosed the plot.
Mr Lee and Mr Tang filed affidavits.
Harun Bin Syed Hussain Aljunied @ Harun Aljunied and Sharifah Fatimah Binte Abdul Kader Aljunied joined as interested parties.
Harun filed affidavit.
Mr Tang filed second affidavit.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Adverse Possession
    • Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff had established adverse possession for the requisite period.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Physical Possession
      • Intention to Possess
      • Continuous Possession
  2. Locus Standi
    • Outcome: The court did not make a definitive finding on the rightful owner of the plot, but noted that neither the interested parties nor Syed Noah had adduced sufficient evidence to prove their interest in the plot.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration of Entitlement
  2. Vesting Order

9. Cause of Actions

  • Adverse Possession

10. Practice Areas

  • Real Estate Law
  • Property Law
  • Land Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate
  • Property Development

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Balwant Singh v Double L & T Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1996] 2 SLR 726SingaporeCited for the principle that adverse possession in Singapore was abolished with the enactment of the Land Titles Act 1993, subject to transitional statutory provisions.
TSM Development Pte Ltd v Leonard Stephanie Celine nee PereiraCourt of AppealYes[2005] 4 SLR 721SingaporeCited for summarizing the present law on adverse possession after the enactment of the 1993 Land Titles Act.
Fones Christina v Cheong Eng Khoon RolandCourt of AppealYes[2005] 4 SLR 803SingaporeCited for reaffirming the summary of the present law on adverse possession as stated in TSM Development Pte Ltd v Leonard Stephanie Celine nee Pereira.
Soon Peng Yam v Maimon bte AhmadCourt of AppealYes[1996] 2 SLR 609SingaporeCited for the elements of adverse possession: physical possession and intention to possess.
Re Lot 114-69 Mukim 22, Singapore and another actionHigh CourtYes[2001] 2 SLR 509SingaporeCited for the elements of adverse possession: physical possession and intention to possess.
Jubilee Electronics v Tai Wah Garments & Knitting FactoryCourt of AppealYes[1996] 2 SLR 39SingaporeCited for the principle that the 12-year period for adverse possession can be constituted by aggregating separate but continuous periods of adverse possession by different people.
Shell Eastern Petroleum (Pte) Ltd v Goh Chor CheokHigh CourtYes[2000] 1 SLR 45SingaporeCited as an example of a case that was criticised by the Court of Appeal for misinterpreting and misapplying Balwant Singh.
Wuta-Ofei v DanquahPrivy CouncilYes[1961] 1 WLR 1238GhanaCited for the principle that the type of conduct which indicates possession must vary with the type of land.
Simpson v FergusCourt of AppealYes(2000) 79 P & CR 398England and WalesCited for the principle that enclosure by fencing is the clearest way of establishing exclusive possession.
Hughes v CorkN/AYes[1994] EGCS 25N/ACited for the principle that the requisite intention for adverse possession is an intention to possess the land and not an intention to dispossess an owner of his land.
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Waterloo Real Estate IncN/AYes[1999] 2 EGLR 85N/ACited for the principle that the requisite intention for adverse possession is an intention to possess the land and not an intention to dispossess an owner of his land.
Littledale v Liverpool CollegeHigh Court of JusticeYes[1900] 1 Ch 19England and WalesCited for the principle that enclosure by fencing is not necessarily enough or conclusive to establish adverse possession.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Land Titles Act 1993Singapore
s 9 Limitation ActSingapore
Land Titles ActSingapore
Revised Edition of the Laws ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Adverse Possession
  • Unregistered Land
  • Possessory Title
  • Limitation Act
  • Physical Possession
  • Intention to Possess
  • Fence
  • Predecessors in Title

15.2 Keywords

  • Adverse Possession
  • Land
  • Singapore
  • Property
  • Real Estate
  • Unregistered Land

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Adverse Possession95
Property Law90
Limitation70

16. Subjects

  • Land Law
  • Real Property
  • Adverse Possession