HO PAK WING v. The estate of CHU PAO LIANG (諸葆良) (alias PAO LIANG CHU), deceased

DCCJ 4498/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 4498 OF 2009

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1. The Plaintiff is the lawful wife of Ho Pak Wing, hereinafter referred to as “Ho”, who passed away on 8 January 2012. She is the lawful executrix of Ho. Ho became one of two tenants in common of a piece of land known as The Remaining Portion of Inland Lot No. 66 Hong Kong, hereinafter referred to as the “Lot 66 RP Land”, on 18 February 1928.

2. From February 1928 to 17 February 1982, the Lot 66 RP Land was registered under the name of Ho’s late father, Ho Sau Sang who passed away in April 1938.  A piece of land abutting on the Lot 66 RP Land known as Section F of Inland Lot No. 66, Hong Kong, the “Lot 66F Land”, has since 22 January 1948 been registered under the name of Chu Pao Liang, the deceased, who according to title documents registered with the Land Registry was solely entitled to the legal and beneficial interest thereof.

3. The deceased died on or about 3 August 1978.  There is no evidence that probate or administration has been granted in relation to his estate.  In around 1966 or 1967, the deceased was dispossessed of Lot 66F Land and the Plaintiff has been continuously in exclusive possession of the same.  In around 1966 or 1967, Ho built a single storey wooden structure on the Lot 66F Land.  Without the consent or knowledge of the deceased, Ho caused and permitted his tenant to exclusively occupy, use and enjoy the said land and the structure erected thereon for the operation of a car rental business.  Then a few months later, Ho rented the Lot 66F Land and the structure thereon to a tenant who operated a junk collection and trading business at a monthly rental of about HK$300.  When the tenancy of the said junk trader ended in or about 1987, the Lot 66F Land with the structure thereon was leased by Ho to another tenant who operated a florist shop therefrom at a monthly rental of about HK$700.  The florist shop has been in operation on the Lot 66 F Land and in the structure thereon since there and the monthly rental received by Ho prior to his death was in the sum of HK$82,000. 

4. Because of the possession of the land, the Lot 66F Land, the deceased, Ho, was in adverse possession of the said land for a period in excess of 12 years before the commencement of this section on 16 October 2009. 

5. The Plaintiff, being the lawful executrix of Ho, is entitled to inherit the lawful interests of Ho, namely the Lot 66F Land.  Because of the facts referred hereinabove, the deceased was dispossessed of the 66F land.  I therefore make an order in terms of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of the inter parte summons.

6. No order as to costs for these proceedings of this case.