THE High Court has ruled that the Registrar of Titles’ registration of the transfer of ownership of a piece of land in Navua to Realeader Company Pte Ltd and the removal of the occupiers’ caveats were both unlawful and invalid.
This was one of the orders given by Justice Dane Tuiqereqere on Monday involving 10 plaintiffs, who claimed to have an interest in 45 of the 149 acres of land in Deuba, home to about 300 families that have lived there for generations.
The plaintiffs asserted they are entitled to the land by adverse possession under sections 77 to 79 of the Land Transfer Act.
They submitted that the registered owner, Kunj Behari, invited their ancestors in the 1940s to the land to occupy, farm and develop it, while also paying rent as tenants for several decades.
When Mr Behari died in the 1960s, his descendants made several efforts in the 1990s and early 2000s to sell part of the Navua property to the plaintiffs and other residents.
However, the parties were unable to reach an agreement and in 2017, Mr Behari’s descendants sold the property to the Realeader Company with the transfer registered in September 2018.
Mr Behari’s descendants were satisfied with the sale on the basis that they were entitled as registered owners to sell the Navua property.
The company submitted that it had acquired a good title from Mr Behari’s descendants and therefore, it had no liability to the plaintiffs, who it claimed are unlawfully occupying the land.
The plaintiffs also said the Registrar of Titles wrongfully and negligently cancelled their caveats in 2018 and therefore, sought, by way of relief, a declaration that they were entitled to five acres each of the Navua property or, in the alternative, compensation and damages for their loss.
Justice Tuiqereqere, however, was satisfied that the plaintiffs had established an equitable interest in a portion of the Navua property founded on the promise by Mr Behari.
He was also satisfied that the company wilfully and deliberately closed its eyes to the potential rights of the plaintiffs when it sought to register the transfer in 2018.
“It sought an unencumbered title, while knowing that the plaintiffs claimed an interest in the Navua property,” the judge ruled.
“I am satisfied that the (company) secured the registered title by fraud, knowing that the plaintiffs claimed an interest in the property yet choosing not to inquire into the matter.”
