“1(1) A person may apply to the registrar to be registered as the proprietor of a registered estate in land if he has been in adverse possession of the estate for the period of ten years ending on the date of the application. (3) However, a person may not make an application under this paragraph if— (a) he is a defendant in proceedings which involve asserting a right to possession of the land, or (b) judgment for possession of the land has been given against him in the last two years.” years.”
“The above property that is owned by my wife and I has recently undergone considerable remedial reconstruction as a result of the attached dwelling owned by the Council being demolished. We have had to make a large financial investment in the structure and refurbishment of our own house in the past to address the same problems that have resulted in the Council’s radical decision to demolish the attached house. …. In establishing the new boundaries of my house and the adjoining land I have become concerned as to the future use and purpose of the plot. I know that a main drain to the village passes through the ground. This may jeopardise future building permission being granted for a new dwelling. The location of the original semi- detached house being on the top of the hill has in the past prevented the Council, for safety reasons, from permitting a garage to be built or to allow off street parking to this house (No 5) on the brow of the hill. With this history of limited development and my concerns as to the future use and maintenance of this small plot of ground, I should respectfully request that you contact me to discuss possible alternative use, responsibility, maintenance and possible ownership”
“Now a boundary agreement may constitute a contract to convey land. The parties may agree that in return for a concession by A in one place, straightening the line of division, B will make a concession in another place; and the agreement may thus be one for the conveyance of land. But there is another type of boundary agreement. This does no more than identify on the ground what the documents describe in words or delineate on plans. Nothing is transferred, at any rate consciously; the agreement is to identify and not to convey. In such a case, I do not see how the agreement can be said to constitute a contract to convey land”. 52. His Lordship went on to say that in cases of uncertainty a boundary agreement would be presumed not to convey land: “There may, of course, be cases in which it is uncertain or doubtful whether a boundary agreement will convey any land. Thus, the configuration of the boundary may suggest that land will be conveyed, without demonstrating this beyond doubt. In such a case I would hold the agreement is not registrable. Clause C(iv) applies to a “contract … to convey” and not to a contract which leaves it uncertain whether or not any land is to be conveyed. In short, in my judgment, a boundary agreement is presumed not to convey land; the presumption may be rebutted, but unless it is, the agreement is not registrable; and to point to circumstances of doubt or uncertainty is not to rebut the presumption”
“I do not consider Parliament, which after all enacted section 2 against the background of Nielson v. Poole, could have intended s. 2 to apply to transfers of land pursuant to boundary agreements of Megarry J’s latter type (“demarcating” agreements) simply because a trivial transfer or transfers of land were consciously involved”
“In my view Joyce v. Rigolli is binding authority for the proposition that an oral demarcation agreement, that is an agreement to demarcate an unclear boundary described in title documents or delineated on a plan, is not void by virtue of s. 2(1) of the 1989 Act even though the agreement has a disposing effect, because the words “a contract for …” in s. 2(1) refer to an agreement which has a disposing purpose”