Author
The boundaries shown on the vast majority of title plans are not definitive. Rather, they show only “general” boundaries. The actual legal boundary will usually depend on the original conveyance or transfer dividing one piece of land from another and may be better shown on the plan attached to that conveyance. But that plan might not be especially clear, and the boundaries may have been moved by adverse possession, so one should also look at the physical features on the ground, such as a hedge, ditch or fence.
Therefore, when buying a property it is very important to check both the plan and the physical boundaries on the ground, and to investigate any discrepancies before proceeding. The perils and costs of not doing so are illustrated by Clapham v Narga.
The case
Dee Narga bought Brook Barn in 2020. The Barn had first been registered in 2003 and was separated from the property to the south by a brook about 1.2 metres wide.
When Ms Narga bought the Barn, a fence ran along the northern side of the brook (i.e. the Barn’s side). Studying the title plan, Ms Narga concluded the boundary was on the southern side of the brook, so she removed the fence and put up a new one on the southern side of the brook.
Then followed a boundary dispute with costs over £300,000.
The dispute: conveyances, adverse possession
In the County Court, the judge reviewed the original conveyances of the properties to the south of the Barn and found that their boundaries were on the southern side of the brook, as Ms Narga argued, and so the Barn’s title plan appeared to be correct. However, the owners of the land to the south (the Claphams and the Wrights) had subsequently acquired the land on the northern side of the brook by adverse possession: they had been in factual possession of the land for the required twelve years or more; they had intended to possess the land; and they did not have permission from the original owner.
Ms Narga had to accept that the Claphams and the Wrights had been in possession of the disputed strip of land, but she argued that the registration of the title to Brook Barn (with the title plan showing the disputed strip as included) effectively trumped their possession of the land.
Judgment
The Court of Appeal did not agree with Ms Narga. The judges reiterated the general boundaries rule: a title plan will not settle the exact location of a boundary regardless of whether it accords with pre-registration conveyances or has been moved by adverse possession.
When the Barn was registered in 2003, the title plan had been based on the plans in the preregistration conveyances. But the boundary had already moved by then: the Claphams and the Wrights had already acquired the strip by adverse possession; the title plan was immaterial.
Lessons to learn
The neighbours’ adverse possession had been achieved before the Barn was registered. Because registration is founded on the state’s guarantee of ownership, it is much more challenging to acquire land by adverse possession once it has been registered. But even then, there is an exception making it easier along boundaries. How much land, registered or unregistered, can be “acquired” along boundaries is an open question, and will depend on the facts and circumstances in each case.
In this case, the judges had little sympathy for Ms Narga, pointing out that she could easily have inspected the boundary and consulted the neighbours before purchasing Brook Barn.
As rural property lawyers, there is nothing we enjoy more than pulling on our wellies and investigating those boundaries!
Author
Michelmores Property Development Club
The Michelmores Property Development Club (PDC) is a forum for developers and property professionals to connect and share knowledge. The Club is celebrating its 22nd...
Michelmores Property Awards
Celebrating the best of property, development and construction in the South West The Michelmores Property Awards celebrate the best property, development and construction projects in...