Hepworth J:

The plaintiff is the owner of a piece of land known as Lot 662, Mukim 14, Province Wellesley North. The defendants are contractors and boat builders and have their place of business at 2698, Bagan Luar Road, Butterworth, Province Wellesley. The plaintiff's claim is for damages for trespass by the defendants on the said land, Lot 662. (A prayer for an injunction was abandoned as now being unnecessary).

Lot 662, which has an area of over four acres, is adjacent to the sea. Between Lot 662 and the sea-shore there is an area approximately 100 feet long by 100 feet wide of what is known as accretion land, that is to say land which was formerly covered by the sea. It is common ground that this accretion land is State land.

On 7 October 1961 the defendants applied to the Collector of Land Revenue, Butterworth, for permission to erect a temporary shed and to construct tongkangs on this accretion land. On the 10 October 1961 the Deputy Collector of Land Revenue, Butterworth, replied to the defendants informing them that their application was approved, subject to two conditions, (a) that the licensee should keep the land clean and that nothing permanent should be erected on it, and (b) that the licensee should seek permission for his own access to the land.

It was the plaintiff's case that the defendants had trespassed on the said Lot 662 in three ways:

(1)By using the said land as a means of access for the purpose of getting to and from the accretion land;

(2)by erecting the temporary shed on the plaintiff's land and not on the accretion land; and

(3)by knocking down a lavatory which had been on the plaintiff's land and building a new lavatory a short distance away.

The defendants denied that they had ever trespassed on any of the plaintiff's land, saying that the temporary structure and the lavatory were built on the accretion land and that the vehicles had obtained access to the accretion land on a route other than the one which ran through the plaintiff's land.

There was some doubt as to the exact location of The temporary structure and the lavatory and I do not think that the plaintiff has discharged the onus upon her of proving that they were erected on her land. The question, however, of using the plaintiff's land as a means of access to the accretion land is a very different matter.

The plaintiff gave evidence that her land was used as a means of access by workmen and motor vehicles. The vehicles she said brought in building materials, steel plates, steel works and motor equipment for the construction of steel lighters. This was confirmed by three witnesses, one of whom was a completely independent witness who lived across the road from the plaintiff's land and could see the plaintiff's land from his house. The plaintiff gave her evidence in a straightforward manner and I have formed the opinion that she was a witness of truth.

The proprietor of the defendant firm, one Lim Tong Sam (DW1) impressed me is a witness who was is untruthful as the plaintiff was truthful. He alleged that before 19 October 1961, he had not made use of the land, that is to say the accretion land. He also stated that he had first started taking goods to the site on or about 28 October 1961. When pressed on these points he became extremely vague and evasive. If What DW1 said true as the the contents of the letter written by the plaintiff to the District Officer, Butterworth, on 17 October, 1961, (p. 3 of bundle "A") complaining that there had been trespassers on her land must have been invented by her. The Deputy Collector of Land Revenue, Butterworth, who was called as a witness by the defendants (DW 2) said that he went on to the accretion land one or two days after the receipt of the plaintiff's letter of the 17 October 1961. That must have been the 20 at the latest. There he found that the temporary shed had already been erected and that on the site there were such things as oxygen cylinders, motor equipment, tools and im