An action ‘to establish title to land,’ not claiming possession, is not an action ‘for the recovery of land,’ so as to require the leave of the Court, under Rules of Court, 1875, Order xvii., rule 2, for its joinder with another cause of action. Where the writ was indorsed for declaration of title, declaration that a lease was granted under a mistake, recovery of rents and profits, and a receiver, and the statement of claim asked also for possession.
Held: that this was an action for recovery of land and nothing else, and that there was no joinder of any cause of action which required the leave of the Court.
An action for ejectment from land was normally issued ‘to recover possession from a tenant’ or former tenant. An action against a trespasser, who did not actually dispossess the person entitled to possession, was based on trespass quare clausum fregit, physical intrusion onto the land. Nonetheless, where a trespasser exclusively occupies land, so as to oust the person entitled to possession, the cause of action must be for recovery of possession.
Whetstone v. Lewis not followed.
Sir George Jessel MR
(1880) 14 Ch D 492, [1880] UKLawRpCh 69
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs v Meier and Others SC 1-Dec-2009
The claimant sought a possession order to recover land from trespassers. The court considered whether a possession order was available where not all the land was occupied, and it was feared that the occupiers might simply move onto a different part. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.381712
