(Bahamas) The provisions in the Acts of 1833 and 1874 did away with the earlier doctrine of ‘non adverse’ possession, under which, in the absence of an ouster, the possession of one joint tenant or tenant in common was regarded as the possession of the others, so that time did not run against those who were not in possession.
Judges:
Lord Upjohn
Citations:
[1968] AC 1072, [1968] UKPC 1, [1968] 2 WLR 873, [1968] 1 All ER 530
Links:
Statutes:
Real Property Limitation Acts of 1833 12, Real Property Limitation Acts of 1874 1
Jurisdiction:
Commonwealth
Cited by:
Cited – Earnshaw and Others v Hartley CA 31-Mar-1999
An administrator de son tort, who was also a beneficiary, held the estate property on trust, and so could not establish adverse possession against the estate during the period of trusteeship. He held a sufficient interest in the assets already. A . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Limitation
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190222
