Goomti Ramnarace v Harrypersad Lutchman: PC 21 May 2001

(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant had gone into possession of land by consent, and many years later declined to leave. The claimant said the period of her adverse possession was insufficient but she claimed a tenancy. The claimant asserted that she had gone into possession as a licensee, and that the limitation period could not commence until her licence was terminated. Adverse possession is possession inconsistent with and in denial of the title of the true owner. A person cannot be a tenant at will where it appears that there was no intention to create legal relations, and she must be taken to have entered into possession of the disputed land in July 1974 as an intending purchaser and as a tenant at will. That tenancy expired after one year, when the limitation period commenced. Her claim succeeded.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Millett, Lord Scott of Foscote

Citations:

[2001] UKPC 24, No 8 of 2000

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC

Statutes:

Real Property Limitation Ordinance 1940

Citing:

CitedHeslop v Burns CA 1974
The defendants had lived in a house rent free for a long period. After the owner died, his executors sought possession saying the defendants were mere licencees. The defendants claimed a tenancy at will, and that the right now asserted was statute . .
CitedMoses v Lovegrove CA 29-Apr-1952
The tenant had gone into possession under an oral agreement with a rent book. He ceased to pay rent or acknowledge the landlord’s right in 1938. In 1952 the landlord sought to recover possession, and now appealed a finding that the tenant had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation, Commonwealth

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.163293