Strachey v Ramage

A conveyance must be construed as a whole and against its admissible factual background when identifying the land conveyed. A plan stated to be “for the purpose of identification only” ordinarily identifies the land’s general position rather than its precise boundaries. Its apparent line cannot override provisions elsewhere in the conveyance or a physical boundary agreed and established before execution.

A registered title plan governed by the general boundaries rule does not confer ownership beyond the property acquired. The exact boundary may be proved from the underlying conveyance and surrounding circumstances. Where the register depicts the general boundary inaccurately, the court may order its alteration to show a more accurate general position.

The owners of adjoining Cornish properties disputed whether their common boundary followed a fence erected shortly before the properties were separately conveyed in 1988, or an unmarked line broadly corresponding with later registered title plans. The fence had been erected to preserve access to agricultural barns. The conveyance described it elsewhere as the “boundary fence”, although its identification-only plan appeared inconsistent with that position.

The Truro County Court dismissed the landowner’s claim for a declaration and rejected her alternative claim based on adverse possession. She appealed on both grounds. The central issues were how the original conveyance identified the boundary, whether registration subsequently conferred title to the disputed strip, and whether the registers should be altered.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. Rimer LJ delivered the principal judgment. Sir Paul Kennedy and Sedley LJ agreed with both the outcome and its reasons. The recorder’s judgment was set aside. The appellant was entitled to a declaration that the disputed boundary followed the fence and to a consequential order altering both registered titles.

2. A conveyance must be construed as a whole. The parcels clause cannot be isolated from the remainder of the instrument. Its verbal description did not identify the disputed boundary precisely, while clause 4 expressly described the recently erected fence as the “boundary fence”, retained its ownership in the vendors and imposed a repairing covenant upon them. A boundary west of the fence would have made those arrangements absurd and prevented lawful performance of the covenant without an unreserved right of access.

3. The words “for the purpose of identification only” ordinarily mean that the plan identifies the land’s position and situation, rather than its precise boundaries. The plan could not override clause 4. Even where such a plan is the only available means of elucidating an imprecise description, the court must use the whole conveyance and all admissible background material. Here the fence, which had been marked out and agreed before the conveyance, was the most relevant physical feature and established the boundary.

4. The later registered title plans did not transfer the disputed strip to the respondent. Under the general boundaries rule in rule 278 of the Land Registration Rules 1925, the plans showed only the boundary’s general position. This was a boundary dispute concerning a small part of the correct property, rather than a claim that registration had conveyed an entirely different property. The exact line could therefore be established from the pre-registration conveyance.

5. The inaccurate lines on the registered plans were mistakes. Correcting them would not affect the respondent’s title, but would substitute a more accurately positioned general boundary. Paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002 therefore did not restrict alteration. Paragraph 3(3) required an order because no exceptional circumstances justified refusing one.

6. The adverse-possession ground was unnecessary to determine. Rimer LJ nevertheless indicated that factual possession and an intention to possess probably existed from 1988. Mere acts of ownership by the paper owner would not stop limitation time; exclusive possession must be resumed or recovery proceedings issued. No final ruling was made on that alternative ground.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed unanimously. The County Court judgment was set aside, a declaration was directed that the fence marked the boundary, and alteration of the registered titles was ordered.

2. Truro County Court: Mr Recorder Timothy Lamb QC dismissed the claim. He held that the boundary followed an unmarked line rather than the fence and rejected the alternative adverse-possession claim.