Lee Martin and Another v Wama bte Buang

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 17 May 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGCA 71
• Date: 21 October 1994
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 127 of 1993
• Year: 1994
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: George Barnabas Pereira (Pereira & Tan)
• Citation: [1994] SGCA 71
• Defendant Counsel: Ho Woon Choon (Yeo-Leong & Peh)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether occupation of land by claimant was independent of previous occupier's occupation,Whether continuous uninterrupted possession of land permitted by the owner,Land,Animus possidendi,Adverse possession,Whether there was evidence of an ouster of the true owner's rights,Whether the claimant had the requisite intention to possess

The respondent, Wama bte Buang, successfully claimed that she has been in continuous adverse possession of all the land situate at and known as lot 91-81 of mukim 28 in the district of Upper Bedok, otherwise known as 531-A Upper Changi Road, Singapore, (the said land) since 28 January 1976 and that all rights and title of the registered owner, his personal representatives or any person claiming under him to the said land or the recovery thereof have been extinguished by virtue of ss 9 and 18 of the Limitation Act (Cap 163). The registered owner of the said land was Lee Chong Miow, also known as CM Lee (Lee). The appellants are his personal representatives. After hearing the appeal on 17 May 1994, we allowed it. We now give our reasons.

Section 9 of the Limitation Act was amended by the addition of a subsection which provides that s 9 shall not apply to an action to recover land from a person by reason only of his unauthorized occupation of land. This amendment became effective on 1 March 1994 and has no application to this appeal.

The facts are not really controversial. The said land was conveyed to Lee by a deed of conveyance dated 27 January 1942 which, however, was not registered until 27 September 1948. The respondent claimed that her father, Buang bin Mamat (Buang) first came on the said land sometime in 1945 as a ground tenant of Lee for a monthly ground rent of $2 per month and was permitted by Lee to erect a plank and zinc roofed hut thereon for his occupation and use. It was claimed that Buang planted fruit trees on the said land and fenced it in with a fencing of sorts, consisting of wooden plank and zinc sheets. She was born on the said land on 25 January 1958. Buang stopped paying Lee the ground rent of $2 per month sometime in June or July 1965 and since then neither Lee nor anyone on his behalf have claimed rent from Buang or from her. So also neither Buang nor she had paid rent for the said land to anyone whomsoever from June or July 1965. Buang died on 28 January 1976 when the respondent was 18 years old. From that date, she and her stepbrother Mashadi bin Maasom have occupied the land uninterruptedly to the date when these proceedings were commenced on 9 February 1990.

The respondent called her stepsister, Mariam bte Tarmidi, as a witness. Having read her evidence, we find her recollections regarding the occupancy of the said land more reliable. When she gave evidence at the trial in December 1992, she was 63 years old. Her first recollections of living on the said land were `before second world war`; that would be before February 1942. In February 1942 she would have been about 12 or 13 years old, an age at which recollections can be relied on. She recalled that she lived there with her mother and her first stepfather, Mat Som. She recalled that Mat Som was the gardener to the landlord, during the war; that must be gardener to Lee, since Lee became owner of the said land in January 1942. She recalled that Mat Som died `not long after Japanese surrender` and that it was then that her mother married Buang and Buang came to live on the said land. In cross-examination, she said that she lived on the said land with her mother and Mat Som and, after Mat Som`s death, with her mother and Buang, and moved out when she married. The significance of this lady`s evidence was that she recalled that her mother`s and Mat Som`s occupation of the said land was with the permission of Lee, who permitted them to live on the land so long as they attended to the land. In answer to a question whether Lee permitted her mother to continue occupying and living on the said land after Mat Som`s death, her answer was that Lee did, but when her mother married Buang, Lee had not expressly said that she and Buang could continue to occupy and live on the said land. What she said was: `It implied that we could stay there as a family. He did not say it in actual words.` Her mother died before Buang did and Buang continued to occupy and live on the said land until he died on 28 January 1976. He lived there with the respondent, Mashadi bin Maasom and other members of his immediate and extended family.

She also recalled that Buang paid rent to Lee every month but not after about 1965.

The evidence was that Lee died on 4 July 1969. The evidence also was that various members of Buang`s immediate or extended family lived on the said land until they moved out to live elsewhere, leaving only the respondent and her stepbrother Mashadi bin Maasom, who have lived continuously on the said land since Buang`s death on 28 January 1976. It will be noted that it is from this date that the respondent...