Goh Leng Kang v Teng Swee Lin
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 17 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | Privy Council Appeal No 2 of |
| Date | 17 November 1976 |
| Court | Privy Council |
[1976] SGPC 6
Privy Council
Lord Russell of Killowen
,
Lord Salmon
and
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
Privy Council Appeal No 2 of 1975
Michael Kempster QC, T A Lebus (Parker, Gazzett & Co) and Harry L Wee for the appellant
Anthony Colman (Jacques & Co) for the respondents.
Srimati Bibhabati Devi v Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy [1946] AC 508 (folld)
Courts and Jurisdiction–Appeals–Privy Council–Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts–Whether Privy Council should depart from practice of non-interference with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts
The plaintiffs/respondents acquired the title to two lots of land and sued the defendant/appellant for possession. The defendant contended that he had acquired, by adverse possession, a possessory title to the land so as to extinguish the title of the predecessors in title to the plaintiffs. The High Court held that the defendant had not occupied or possessed the disputed land for 12 years and so could not have acquired a title by adverse possession. The defendant appealed and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The defendant further appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (“the Board”). The primary issue was whether there were grounds to justify departing from the rule of practice that the Board would not interfere with concurrent findings of facts in the courts below.
Held, dismissing the appeal:
The principles relating to the practice of non-interference with concurrent findings of facts are set out in Srimati Bibhabati Devi v Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy [1946] AC 508. The instant case did not fall within the exceptions, nor was it within any exception that might be added having regard to the fact that this practice was not a cast-iron rule: at [21].
(delivering the judgment of the Board):
1 The primary question in this appeal (in which ultimately a new trial was sought) is whether there are grounds which justify departure from the salutary rule of practice that this Board will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the courts below. Their Lordships being of opinion that there are no such grounds the appeal may be dealt with reasonably briefly.
2 The case concerns a not very considerable area of land in Lots 250 and 249: the appellant/defendant contends that by adverse possession of the disputed land from 1953 to 1965 as a residence and as a temple, of which ultimately (as possessed by a deity) he was medium and curator, he acquired a twelve-year possessory title so as to extinguish the title of the predecessors in title of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs acquired the paper title to Lot 250 in 1967 and to Lot 249 in 1970, their object being to develop godowns or warehouses thereon.
3 Lot 260 was an area on which there was a school. Below it (in terms of the plans) were Lots 249 and 250 adjacent to each other, the boundary between Lots 249 and 250 and Lot 260 being a straight line, with a boundary stone at the point where the three lots coincided. Lot 260 was markedly higher than the greater part of Lots 249 and 250, and the ground sloped quite steeply down from inside Lot 260. In Lot 260 opposite the relevant parts of Lots 250 and 249 was a retaining wall to support the soil which was higher than those relevant parts. On this retaining wall was a fence and between it and Lots 249 and 250 there was a strip of Lot 260 which the evidence showed was some 20 to 30ft in width. To the eye it might thus understandably appear that any building on that strip was outside the confines of Lot 260 and within the confines of Lots 250 and 249.
4 The case for the defendant was that his residence or temple had stood where it now stands on Lots 250 and 249 since 1953. The case for the plaintiffs was that it had stood in the strip of Lot 260 above mentioned until in 1968 the defendant moved it into the disputed land, taking over a chicken house structure and area on Lots 250 and 249 and subsequently renovating the latter into the temple which now stands there.
5 The concurrent finding of fact is that indeed the occupation by the defendant of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee Suat Hong v Teo Lye
... ... Goh Leng Kang v Teng Swee Lin [1974-1976] SLR (R) 124 (refd) ... Ng Liang Poh ... ...