Two adjoining plots were conveyed to the same purchaser. Buildings were constructed, and the adjusted boundary required an obtuse angle. The plots were sold on separately but with the original straight boundaries. The plans on the conveyances had no measurements.
Held: The plans being the same, the lines were to be taken from the original conveyances. The building (a garage) encroached, though the claimant was not entitled to any relief.
A plan introduced ‘for the purpose of identification only’ ‘cannot control the parcels in the body of any of the deeds’.
Sir Raymond Evershed MR, Jenkins, Morris LJJ
[1955] 1 WLR 213, [1955] 1 All ER 550, (1055) 99 Sol Jo 168, [1955] EWCA Civ 7
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Wallington v Townsend ChD 1939
The parties exchanged contracts for the sale and purchase of land, but the contract had attached an incorrect plan, including a strip of land now disputed. Neither party had properly attended to what they were signing. The plaintiff buyer maintained . .
Cited – Willmott v Barber ChD 19-Jun-1880
In 1869 Barber granted a 99-year lease of three acres of land in east London, subject to a covenant against assignment or sub-letting without consent. In 1874, in breach of covenant, he sub-let one acre on an annual tenancy to Willmott (who owned a . .
Cited by:
Cited – Drake and Another v Fripp CA 3-Nov-2011
The parties disputed the location of the boundary between their properties. An appeal against the adjudicator’s award altering the filed plan.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘there was no restriction on the adjudicator’s power to direct the Land . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Leading Case
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.235515