Moulmein Development Pte Ltd v Teo Teck Guan and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 13 January 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] SGCA 3
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 146 of 1997
• Date: 13 January 1998
• Year: 1998
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Davinder Singh SC and Harpreet Singh (Drew & Napier)
• Citation: [1998] SGCA 3
• Defendant Counsel: Khoo Boo Jin (Wee Swee Teow & Co)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether evidence to show intention of party in possession to exclude all others,Land,Adverse possession,Whether period of adverse possession terminated by conveyance of legal title in disputed land from owners to appellants' predecessors-in-title -Effect of Limitation Act ss 9(1), 15(1)(Cap 163, 1996 Ed),Elements,Whether respondents possessed requisite element "animus possidendi",Whether belief in another party's superior title to disputed land fatal to establishing animus possidendi

Judgment:

KARTHIGESU JA

(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court): This appeal arose from Suit No 1265/95, an action brought by one Teo Teck Guan (Teo) in his personal capacity and also in his capacity as the representative of the estate of his mother Sin Yin Yong (Sin). We dismissed the appeal on 20 November 1997 and we now give our reasons for doing so.

2. Introduction

At the centre of the dispute between the parties was a property known as No 40A Crane Road which straddled parts of three lots of land, namely, Lot 28-6 Mukim 26, Lot 28-27 Mukim 26 and Lot 28-7 Mukim 26. Lot 28-7 is State land and was not part of Teo`s claim in Suit No 1265/95. His claim was only concerned with those parts of Lot 28-6 and Lot 28-27 on which No 40A Crane Road stood. The land areas concerned amounted to approximately 44.8 sq m of Lot 28-6 and approximately 26.4 sq m of Lot 28-27. In these written grounds we shall refer to these land areas collectively as `the disputed land`.

3. The facts

The events leading to the commencement of Suit No 1265/95 were as follows. Teo and his family first came to live on the disputed land in mid-1957, when Teo`s father accepted the invitation of one Chng Tang Huat to occupy the disputed land. Teo`s father built the house which later became known as No 40A Crane Road. Chng Tang Huat himself lived nearby with his family, in a house later to be known as No 56 Carpmael Road.

4.Beginning from mid-1957, the Teos paid Chng Tang Huat a sum of $25 every month. Teo`s father would give the money to Sin and she in turn would hand it to Chng Tang Huat`s wife. After Chng Tang Huat`s wife died in 1977, Sin continued to pay the monthly sum of $25 to Chng Peng Cheong (Chng), a son of Chng Tang Huat. After Teo`s father died, Teo`s eldest brother Teo Teck Beng took over the responsibility of providing Sin with this $25 every month. Subsequently, Teo himself took on this responsibility when Teo Teck Beng got married and moved away from No 40A Crane Road.

5.The Teos regarded the monthly payment of $25 as payment of `rent` to Chng Tang Huat and later, Chng Peng Cheong. Apparently, they thought that the Chngs were the tenants of the disputed land. In fact, Chng Tang Huat and his family had no legal title or interest in the disputed land or even in the land on which No 56 Carpmael Road stood.

6.Sometime in 1978 the Teos were asked by the government authorities to install a modern sanitation system on the disputed land. They tried to get Chng to make the necessary arrangements but he refused. The Teos then got together with some of their neighbours and collectively, they arranged for the installation of modern sanitation facilities on their land. The Teos` share of the costs involved in this exercise came to $1,350. Teo paid for this, but the receipts and all other relevant documentation were issued in Sin`s name.

7.Even before the above exercise had been completed, however, the Teo family suffered a grave shock. In August 1978, Chng refused to accept the monthly $25 payment from Sin. According to Teo, Chng told Sin that he `no longer accepted [them] as tenants and [their] family should quit and vacate the house`. In a letter to the Property Tax Division dated 18 April 1979, Sin stated that this occurred on 1 August 1978.

8.The Teo family did not leave the disputed land. Instead, Sin sought advice from the Legal Aid Bureau. On their advice, she wrote to Chng on 16 September 1979 enclosing the `rent` for the months of August and September 1978. The letter, which was sent by AR-Registered post, was returned with the notation `Gone Away`; and the `rent` payment enclosed was never accepted by Chng. According to Teo, his family had no further contact with Chng after this and they continued to reside at No 40A Crane Road, even after Sin passed away in 1994.

9.The appellants appeared on the scene sometime in the early 1990s. Lot 28-6 was conveyed to the appellants on 17 February 1994 and the certificate of title was issued to them as proprietors on 23 February 1995. As for Lot 28-27, the certificate of title was issued to the appellants` predecessors in title, Koh Keng Wah Pte Ltd, as proprietors on 4 October 1991; and the appellants were registered as proprietors of this lot on 7 April 1995, pursuant to a transfer from Koh Keng Wah Pte Ltd.

10.Following their acquisition of the legal title to Lots 28-6 and 28-27, the appellants attempted to put an end to the Teos` continued residence at No 40A Crane Road. Teo responded by commencing an action in High Court Suit No 1265/95, whereby he claimed, inter alia, a declaration that he was entitled to the disputed land by virtue of adverse possession of the land in either of his two capacities as plaintiff. The relevant paragraphs of his re-amended statement of claim stated as follows:

Para. 4

Since 1 August 1978 to date, the first plaintiff has been in continuous, adverse, uninterrupted and exclusive possession and occupation of the said lands. The first plaintiff therefore completed twelve (12) years of continuous, adverse, uninterrupted and exclusive possession of the said lands by 31 July 1990.

Para. 9

Alternatively, the second plaintiff will aver that his mother, Sin Yin Yong, was in continuous adverse and uninterrupted possession of the said lands for a period of more than twelve years since 1 August 1978 and upon her death, her rights and interests in the said lands vested in her estate.

11.It should be noted that Teo`s claim was unaffected by the provisions of Act No 27 of 1993, which Act removed the possibility of title to land in Singapore being acquired by adverse possession. This was because the events concerned in Teo`s claim fell within the period prior to 1 March 1994, the date on which Act No 27 of 1993 came into effect.

12.The trial judge gave judgment for Teo in his capacity as the representative of Sin`s estate. The trial judge held that Sin was treated at all material times as the head of the Teo household and that the acts relied on by Teo as having given rise to adverse possession had all been done in Sin`s name: in the trial judge`s view, therefore, she was `the adverse possessor upon whom Teo and his own family were dependent occupants`.

13.The appellants appealed against the trial judge`s decision. They did not, however, challenge the finding that Sin was the adverse possessor upon whom Teo`s claim was founded. Accordingly we dealt with the appeal on the same premise.

14. The appellants` case

We have already stated that the claim in Suit No 1265/95 concerned those parts of Lot 28-6 and Lot 28-27 occupied by the house No 40A Crane Road. Not surprisingly, the appellants did not seriously dispute that Sin had, throughout the period 1 August 1978 to 31 July 1990, exercised the necessary degree of physical control over the disputed land. What they disputed was the existence of that other essential component of her claim of adverse possession: the mental element commonly referred to as the ` animus possidendi ` or, as Lindley MR put it in Littledale v Liverpool College [1900] Ch 19, `the intention of excluding the owner as well as other people` from the disputed land. In the submission of the appellants` counsel, the evidence failed to support a finding that Sin had manifested the necessary animus possidendi during the relevant 12-year period.

15.Counsel further contended that in respect of Lot 28-27 at least, any adverse possession by Sin had been interrupted by a conveyance of the lot from the then paper owners to Koh Keng Wah Pte Ltd on 8 December 1982.

16. The element of animus possidendi

In so far as the issue of animus possidendi was concerned, counsel for the appellants argued that the following acts by Sin negatived the existence of any intention to exclude others from the disputed land: (a). the tender of rent by Sin to Chng, by way of the letter of 16 September 1978;

(b). Sin`s property tax return of 18 April 1979. This return was filed in response to an enquiry from the Property Tax Division regarding No 40A Crane Road. In this return, Sin gave Chng`s name in reply to a question which asked her for the name and address of the `Owner, Landlord, or other person` to whom she paid rent. She did not claim `owner-occupation` of No 40A Crane Road. She also attached a letter to her return, in which she informed the Property Tax Division that she had paid Chng rent until 1 August 1978, when he refused to accept rent;

(c). Sin`s second property tax return of 29 October 1980. In this return, she again identified Chng as the person to whom rent had been paid in respect of No 40A Crane Road.

17.Counsel for the appellants argued that the above acts showed `an explicit recognition of Chng`s superior interest in the disputed land`. That being the case, so counsel argued, Sin could not have intended to possess the disputed land to the exclusion of the world at large because plainly, she could not have intended to exclude Chng.

18.Counsel also pointed to the fact that Sin`s AR-registered letter of 16 September 1978 had been returned with the notation `Gone Away`. This notation, so he argued, showed that Chng must have moved away sometime in 1978; and this must have been the only reason why Sin paid no more rent from August 1978 onwards. Counsel was certain that had Chng not moved away, Sin would have gone on paying him rent. He urged us, therefore, not to attribute any significance to the non-payment of rent from August 1978 onwards.

19.With respect, we had no hesitation in rejecting this last argument. It appeared to us to depend entirely on conjecture: in order for us to agree with the argument, we had first to suppose that Chng must have moved from No 56 Carpmael Road in August or September 1978. However, as Teo`s counsel pointed out, Teo had already stated clearly in his affidavit of evidence-in-chief that Chng moved away `in the late 1980s`. This statement was never refuted or even challenged by the appellants during the trial below....