Kassim Oli Mohamed v Noordin and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Choor Singh J
• Judgment Date: 11 May 1967
• Neutral Citation: [1967] SGHC 8
• Citation: [1967] SGHC 8
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1967
• Docket Number: Suit No 990 of 1961
• Date: 11 May 1967
• Subject Matter: Whether section 13(1) of Limitation Ordinance 1959 applicable,Whether there had been discontinuance of possession,Whether possessory title on land acquired,Sections 9(1) and 10(1) Limitation Ordinance 1959,Section 13(1) Limitation Ordinance 1959,Permission given to build a house on land,Whether a mere licence or tenancy at will created,Duration of tenancy,Adverse possession,Landlord and Tenant,Tenancy at will,Land
• Plaintiff Counsel: YR Jumabhoy (Mallal & Namazie)
• Defendant Counsel: NC Goho (SC Goho & Co)

In this action the plaintiff`s claim is for a declaration that the defendants are not entitled to remain on his premises known as No 70 Jalan Haji Salam Singapore, and for an injunction to restrain them from remaining on the said premises.

The first defendant has not entered an appearance and the plaintiff has already obtained judgment against him. The second defendant`s defence is that he is the lawful owner of the said premises, having acquired under the Limitation Ordinance 1959 a statutory title to it by virtue of his having been in uninterrupted adverse possession for over 12 years and he counterclaims for a declaration that he is lawful owner of the said premises.

The plaintiff purchased in 1954 from the first defendant and his brother Beedin the land comprised in Lot 103 Mukim XXVII which has an area of two acres two roods and .03 poles. There are nine `Malay type` houses on this land and one of them is No 70 Jalan Haji Salam which is the subject matter of these proceedings. In 1954 this house was known as No 556-C Jalan Haji Salam and before that as 556-C Tanah Merah Kechil. I shall hereafter, for convenience, refer to it as `house No 556-C`. All the other houses on Lot 103 are owned by their occupants who pay a ground rent of $5 per month each to the plaintiff. By their conveyance dated 30 July 1954 the first defendant and his brother Beedin conveyed to the plaintiff all the land comprised in Lot 103 `together with the house erected thereon and known as 556-C Jalan Haji Salam, Singapore.` The conveyance gives the address of the first defendant as 556-C Tanah Merah Kechil, Singapore.

The plaintiff`s evidence is that he inspected the property before he purchased it; that he was shown around the property by the first defendant; that the first defendant took him to his house which was numbered 556-C; that the first defendant told him that he was selling the property with vacant possession of house No 556-C; that after the completion of the sale the first defendant failed to move out of house No 556-C and asked for time to move out; that later the first defendant brought the second defendant to him and introduced him as a relative who wished to rent house No 556-C; that he offered to rent it to the second defendant at a rental of $25 per mensem; that the second defendant offered to pay ground rent of $5 per mensem which he did not accept; that thereafter he left for India; that while he was away in India the second defendant wrote a letter to him offering to pay rent for house No 556-C; that upon his return from India both defendants came to see him and renewed their request that house No 556-C be rented to the second defendant; that he again demanded a rent of $25 per mensem; that both defendants then left saying they would think the matter over and that eventually he commenced these proceedings.

The first defendant`s evidence is that the house which was sold to the plaintiff together with the land comprised in Lot 103 was another house which was numbered 556; that he never sold house No 556-C to the plaintiff; that at the time of the sale he was residing in house No 556 and not in house No 556-C; that house No 556-C belongs to the second defendant; that after the sale he moved out of house No 556 and resided in house No 556-C as a guest of the second defendant until 1962; that he never took the second defendant to see the plaintiff at any time and that the second defendant never offered to pay a ground rent of $5 per mensem to the plaintiff.

The second defendant`s evidence is that house No 556-C was built by his father in 1931 when he was 13 years old; that it was built with the permission of the first defendant`s father who was the then owner of the land; that he became the owner of the house upon the death of his father in 1934; that neither his father nor he has ever paid any ground rent for the land on which the house stands; that the house is registered in his name with the Property Tax Department; that he has been paying property tax on the house; that the first defendant came to live with him after he sold his land; that before that the first defendant lived in house No 556 which is another house on Lot 103; that the first defendant did not take him to see the plaintiff at any time; that he has never requested the plaintiff to rent house No 556-C to him; that he has never offered to pay ground rent to the plaintiff and that he has never written any letter to the plaintiff asking him to rent the house to him.

Six other witnesses, all of whom have lived on Lot 103 for long periods of time, have given evidence in this case and all of them say that house No 556-C belongs to the second defendant. Even the plaintiff`s witness, Awang, says that it is the second defendant`s house and that he has seen him living in this house as far back as 1945. In my opinion the evidence is overwhelming that house No 556-C was constructed in 1931 or thereabouts by the second defendant`s father with the permission of the first...