Lian Kok Hong v Lee Choi Kheong and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 14 January 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] SGHC 18
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 15 January 2009
• Citation: [2009] SGHC 18
• Plaintiff Counsel: Prabhakaran N. Nair (Ong Tan & Nair)
• Defendant Counsel: L. Devadason (instructed) and Tan Kwee Sain Pauline (P.Tan & Company)
• Subject Matter: Land,Civil Procedure
• Year: 2009

14 January 2009

Choo Han Teck J:

1 The plaintiff owns the property on which house No 72 Belmont Road is sited. The defendants, a family of four (being the parents and two children) own the property on which house No 70 Belmont Road is sited. No. 70 and 72 Belmont Road were part and parcel of the same property until their owner subdivided them in 1949. Since then, the subdivided properties have changed ownership many times. The plaintiff purchased his lot in 1994 from Madam Koh Ah Kim who had purchased it in 1971. The defendants purchased their property in December 2007 from Gan Boon Hwee. Gan Boon Hwee purchased it in 1986. After 70 and 72 Belmont Road were created in 1949, 70 Belmont Road would have been landlocked had there not been the access road that runs alongside 72 Belmont Road. This access road was part of the property of 70 Belmont Road after the sub-division. The present entrance to 72 Belmont Road also opens into this access road by virtue of a right of easement that was created at the time of sub-division. Hence, presently, to enter 70 and 72 Belmont Road, one has to turn into the access road from Belmont Road. This action was commenced by the plaintiff when the defendants decided to construct a gate at the access road where it meets Belmont Road. Presently, the plaintiff and the defendants have gates to their own houses respectively off the access road. The new gate would be an additional gate common to the plaintiff as well as the defendants. The latter did not dispute the right of the plaintiff to enter and leave through that gate but the plaintiff claimed that the construction of the common gate was in violation of the plaintiff’s right of easement. He thus claimed an injunction against the defendants to enjoin them from building the gate. The defendants claimed that the construction of the gate was not in breach of the plaintiff’s right of way, and claimed, in turn, their right of easement over part of the plaintiff’s land, and the restoration of the boundary which the plaintiff’s boundary wall had encroached (at the maximum 0.09m).

2 The evidence showed that when 70 and 72 Belmont Road were created in 1949 under Indenture 1056 N0 101 (by sub-dividing 70 Belmont Road from the parent lot), the then owner also created mutual easements over both properties. The owner of 72 Belmont Road was entitled to an easement through the access road which was part of the property of 70 Belmont Road and the owners of 70 Belmont...