Sale of land — Proof of title — Nature of title contracted for — Whether sufficient to prove possessory title — Appeal dismissed
Court proceedings between the appellant and the respondents over the ownership of land were compromised by way of an agreement under which each undertook to transfer certain parcels to the other. The land to be transferred by the respondents included an area in respect of which they claimed a possessory title only. For the purposes of the contract, they relied upon a statutory declaration to prove title.
The appellant later claimed that he owned that land. He maintained that his predecessor in title had acquired it by adverse possession, and, on that basis, he procured a conveyance from his predecessor to himself. He then purported to rescind the agreement with the respondents, contending that they had failed to discharge their implied obligation to prove their title. The respondents sought specific performance of the agreement, and were awarded summary judgment on the basis that the appellant had no real prospect of success at trial.
The appellant appealed. He relied upon the proposition that a title resting solely upon the vendor’s possession for 12 years or more, albeit supported by statutory declarations, did not suffice to establish a good title, and that it was necessary to show that the interests of all claimants to the original title had been extinguished, by tracing the title from a good root to the point where the then legal owner was dispossessed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
While the appellant’s contention was correct as a general proposition, the vendor’s implied obligation to show good title had to be modified in the light of what a purchaser knew of the vendor’s title at the date of contracting: McGrory v Alderdale Estate Co Ltd [1917] 1 Ch 414 applied. Since the appellant had been aware that the respondents claimed a possessory title only, that was all they had contracted for. There was no question of forcing a possessory title upon a purchaser in place of the title contracted for: George Wimpey & Co Ltd v Sohn [1967] Ch 487 and Ashe v Hogan [1920] 1 IR 159 distinguished. Accordingly, the respondents’ title was sufficiently reliable, provided that they could show a good possessory title.
The title offered by the respondents did not leave the appellant at risk that it might be upset, since the only potential source of attack on that title was the appellant himself. Accordingly, as between the respondents and the appellant, the respondents did have good title to the land.
Katharine Holland (instructed by Rokeby Johnson Baars LLP) appeared for the appellant; Wayne Clark (instructed by Wedlake Bell) appeared for the respondents.
Sally Dobson, barrister
