1. The limit of a registered estate designated for the purposes of the registry is a general limit, unless it is set in this section. (2) A general border does not determine the exact line of the border. If you are trying to determine where the boundary between two lands is, the starting point is to find (if you can) the original document (promotion, act, transmission, etc.) that they have in two parts. I hope that a plan will be attached, but it is not a good thing to isolate the plan, not least because it is unlikely to tell you exactly where the border is. This may be because it is not clearly drawn because the measures may be imprecise or unclear as to the origin of these measures. In addition, the thickness of a line on a plane represents a large area on the ground. When considering a land registry document, the general border code makes it clear that the plan should not indicate the exact limit. There may be “extrinsic evidence” such as previous plans or previous sales statements that may assist, or it may be possible to resort to a legal presumption. However, whatever other factors might help determine the boundary, it is always crucial to go into the field, document and “plan in hand,” and consider the characteristics on the ground – always at the back of the mind that we are trying to understand what these characteristics were at the time of the initial division of the field. Parties to a means of transport can of course use such a map to mark the border and, if so, they are bound to what the map shows: Fisher v Winch [1939] 1 KB 666.
The following passage was cited in this decision: Although the normal position is that a land registry title plan shows only a general limit, it is possible to have the “exact line of a border” determined. This is what is provided in s60 (3) for a case where the rule has been discussed – although in some rather complex facts – see Drake/Fripp [2011] EWCA Civ 1279. The question emphasizes once again that the template of a title is only a “general limit” and should not indicate the exact boundary between the two properties. This agreement will be signed on July 15, 2017 between John Smith of 10 Acacia Avenue, a title registered under the title number XX12345, and Mary Brown of 12 Acacia Avenue, title listed under title number XX67891. Even T-brands do not offer the help that many receive. Contrary to the popular belief of many practitioners in this field, a T-mark on a plan does not demonstrate a presumption of ownership. Although T-marks may indicate ownership of a border feature (see Seeckts v Derwent [2004] EWCA Civ 393), this does not mean that they represented a legal presumption that the boundary characteristic belonged to the landowner (Lanfear v Chandler [2013] EWCA Civ 1497). Finally, T-marks can simply identify the object of an explicit repair alliance and not indicate ownership of that feature itself.
Instead, T-marks are simply one of many authorized factors that help to understand the ownership of boundary characteristics. Seek legal advice if you are considering a border agreement. Where documents do not show, border assumptions can sometimes help, but they are exactly that, assumptions, and can be refuted by evidence. For unregistered land, a “squatter” may have acquired ownership of his neighbour`s country (to “move” the paper title limit) if he or she has been held exclusively by the country for 12 years. Even with respect to the stricter rules for registered lands, the third condition in paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 of Schedule 6 of the LRA 2002 allows possession of harmful land where a neighbour has owned land adjacent to a general border for at least 10 years and the squatters “reasonably believed” that they owned the land at that time.
