Lohia & Anor v Lohia

A trial judge’s finding about a historic voluntary transfer of land will not be disturbed on appeal where it was based on an assessment of oral evidence and a permissible inference from the available documents. Registration of one former joint owner as sole proprietor justified the inference that a transfer had been executed. The court found that the inferred family arrangement transferred both the legal and beneficial interest, thereby rebutting any resulting-trust presumption arising from the transfer’s voluntary nature. The Court of Appeal deliberately left open the wider construction of Law of Property Act 1925, section 60(3), namely whether that provision abolished the presumption of resulting trust on every voluntary conveyance or only excluded an inference based on the omission of traditional words of limitation.

The appellant claimed a 75 per cent beneficial interest in a residential property acquired jointly with his father in 1955. Although they were initially registered as joint proprietors, the father became sole registered proprietor in 1965. No transfer document survived, and the appellant denied signing or authorising one.

The Deputy High Court Judge inferred that a transfer had been made as part of a family arrangement and held that the father became sole beneficial owner. After the father’s intestate death, the appellant and his brother therefore inherited equal beneficial shares. The judge also dismissed the respondents’ claim for an occupation rent, and that finding was not challenged. The appeal concerned the beneficial ownership issue and the effect of section 60(3) of the Law of Property Act 1925.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the Deputy High Court Judge’s finding that the property had been transferred into the father’s sole name under a family arrangement.
2. The Land Registry could not have registered the father as sole proprietor without receiving a transfer which appeared to have been executed by the former joint owners. The absence of the document, the passage of time and the appellant’s denial made the issue difficult, but the judge had seen and heard the appellant and was entitled to assess his credibility.
3. On the limited evidence, the judge was entitled to infer that a family arrangement was the more probable explanation for the transfer. The inference was not unsupported, against the weight of the evidence, or one which no reasonable court could draw. Continued payment of mortgage instalments and receipt of rent by the appellant did not compel a different conclusion, particularly while he continued to live in the property.
4. The finding that the appellant intended to transfer his beneficial interest to his father was sufficient to rebut any presumption of resulting trust arising from the voluntary nature of the transfer. The appeal therefore failed without deciding the broader statutory issue.
5. The court declined to express a concluded view on section 60(3) of the Law of Property Act 1925. It observed that the language and statutory context appeared to exclude an implication based merely on the omission of traditional words in voluntary conveyances, while not necessarily excluding a resulting trust inferred from other circumstances. The point was historically complex and unnecessary to the disposition.
6. Appeal dismissed with costs, subject to Legal Services Community assessment.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lohia & Anor v Lohia, [2001] EWCA Civ 1691, dismissed the appeal and upheld the Deputy High Court Judge’s decision on beneficial ownership.
• Chancery Division of the High Court: Mr Nicholas Strauss QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, decided on 6 July 2000 that the father was sole beneficial owner at his death and that the appellant and his brother took equal shares. The claim for an occupation rent was dismissed.