Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) >> Parveen Akhtar v Mobin Akhlaq (Alteration and rectification of the register : Mistake) [2019] UKFTT 372 (PC) (09 May 2019)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/PC/2019/2016_0825.html
Cite as: [2019] UKFTT 372 (PC)
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Parveen Akhtar v Mobin Akhlaq (Alteration and rectification of the register : Mistake) [2019] UKFTT 372 (PC) (09 May 2019)
[2019] UKFTT 372 (PC). Intra-family dispute over the ownership of a property. Property transferred for no consideration from the Applicant to her mother, then to her sister and finally to her niece. Applicant alleged that her signature on the apparent transfer to her mother had been forged (by her sister) and sought alteration/rectification of the register to reinstate the Applicant as registered proprietor. Evidence of Applicant preferred to that of other family members. Applicant's expert handwriting report not seriously challenged by Respondent. HELD that the Applicant's signature had been forged and that the transfer to the Applicant's mother was void., so (i) the registration of the void transfer was a mistake (for the purposes of paragraph 5(a) of Schedule 4 Land Registration Act 2002), (ii) that the power of the registrar to correct mistakes under paragraph 5(a) extended to the two subsequent transfers (as ‘derivative' mistakes), (iii) that the correction of the mistake(s) constituted rectification of the register, (iv) that as a registered proprietor in possession the Respondent was entitled to the presumption against rectification under paragraph 6(2) - although the property was tenanted, the Respondent was in possession by virtue of section 131(2) of the 2002 Act; (iv) that the Applicant had rebutted that presumption of protection on the basis that it would be unjust not to rectify the register â€-œ this was the crucial issue and the principal factor was my finding that the Respondent and her mother had colluded to try to defeat the Applicant's claim to the subject property; and (v) if relevant in the light of (iv) above, that there were no exceptional circumstances which justified not making the rectification under paragraph 6(3). The challenged transfer took place in 1996. However, (i) the Applicant had entered a caution soon afterwards, although she subsequently agreed to its cancellation for plausible reasons; (ii) the Applicant sought to resolve the dispute within the family and without recourse to legal proceedings; and (iii) the delay in re-asserting her claim with the Land Registry was outweighed by the particular circumstances of the case and the absence of ‘substantial identifiable prejudice' to the Respondent (see Macleod v Gold Harp Properties Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 1084 per Underhill LJ at [104].
A HTML version of this file is not available click here or view below the pdf version : [2019] UKFTT 372 (PC).pdf