[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – A homeowner who went to court and claimed that a strip of land next to his University Road property belonged to him because the roots of his rambutan trees had spread to the neighboring parcel, lost the case.
The disputed parcel of land, a narrow strip of about 64.5 square meters with no structures on it, is owned by real estate investment firm Yat Yuen Hong Company.
Mr. Koh Ah Kin argued that he had acquired neighboring land through adverse possession, a law that allowed a person to claim a parcel of land if he had occupied it for 12 years without the owner’s permission.
This law was abolished on March 1, 1994, which meant that Mr. Koh had to prove that he was in possession of the neighboring lands before March 1, 1982, at least 12 years before the law was changed.
To support his case, Mr. Koh hired an arborist to provide expert evidence in an attempt to prove that the rambutan trees he planted in 1980 are the same trees that have taken root in the adjacent plot.
Their arguments were rejected on Wednesday (November 18) by Superior Court Judge Lee Seiu Kin, who said that Koh has not shown that the trees were planted before March 1, 1982.
In any event, Judge Lee said, the trees were on Mr. Koh’s property and not within the strip of land.
“I do not see how the fact that a tree, planted by the plaintiff on his property, and whose roots grow in the land of the defendant, could constitute an adverse possession,” added the judge.
Koh, who bought his home in 1979, filed his claim this year.
Yat Yuen Hong Company filed a counterclaim, demanding that Mr. Koh remove the fences and walls that he had built around the strip of land.
Koh relied on two points to argue that he has been in possession of the land for at least 12 years.
He alleged that in the early 1980s, he removed two existing fences on the strip of land and built a retaining wall and a new fence. He claimed that he had also filled the strip of land with dirt and flattened it.
He produced photographs, one dated January 1984 and two taken more recently, to show the new fence.
Mr. Koh also argued that the rambutan trees he had planted on his property around the same time as the construction sites, are the same trees on the site today.
He submitted photos of the trees, from 1984 to the present, and requested expert tests to compare the architecture of the branches and the shape of the tree from both sets of photographs.
The company also hired its own arborist to counter Mr. Koh’s expert.
Judge Lee said that, in his judgment, the photos of the fences did not help Mr. Koh’s case, as the fences in the two sets of photos are different from each other.
The judge also said that Mr. Koh was unable to produce documentary evidence of the construction works.
It further added that Mr. Koh has not shown that he had built the new fence or planted the trees before March 1, 1982 and therefore has not shown that he was in possession of the strip of land for 12 years.
The judge determined that Yat Yuen Hong Company remains its owner and ordered Mr. Koh to remove the fences and walls surrounding the property.
[ad_2]
