Ambrose J:

This was an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of FA Chua J declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of a parcel of land occupied by the defendant and ordering the defendant to deliver up possession to the plaintiff. It was dismissed with costs on the day of the hearing with an intimation that reasons for the dismissal would be given in due course. I now proceed to give my reasons.

The plaintiff bought a piece of land in September 1962, and commenced the action in the High Court on 2 October 1963 to recover a certain part of it which was occupied by the defendant. He pleaded that he bought the land, that the defendant was in wrongful possession of a specified part of it, and that he, the plaintiff, was entitled to possession. The defendant pleaded that he was in possession of the specified part and had been in possession since 1945. The defendant went on to plead that the plaintiff's claim was barred by s. 9 of the Limitation Ordinance 1959, and that the plaintiff's right and title were extinguished by s. 18 of the Ordinance.

The trial Judge found the facts set out in this and the next paragraph. In September 1962, the plaintiff purchased Lot 55 of TS XXV in the district of Claymore, Singapore. This lot contains an area of 23,231 sqft, and has on it a house known as No. 4 Claymore Hill. On the eastern side of Lot 55 and adjoining it is Lot 56, which contains an area of 24,702 sqft, and has on it a house known as No. 9 Scotts Road. On the western side of Lot 55 and adjoining it is the road known as Claymore Hill. On the eastern side of Lot 56 and adjoining it is Scotts Road, which is parallel to Claymore Hill. Claymore

Hill is on higher ground. Between No. 4 Claymore Hill and No. 9 Scotts Road are two outhouses built on Lot 55. The portion of land on which the two outhouses are situated is flat. It is higher than the portion of land on which house No. 9 is erected, but lower than the portion of land on which house No. 4 stands. There is a brick retaining wall with a fence on top of it separating house No. 4 from the outhouses. Behind house No. 9 are two sets of steps leading up to the higher ground where the outhouses are. The boundary between Lot 55 and Lot 56 is at the bottom of the two sets of steps.

Prior to 1930 Lee San Eng owned both lots. In June 1930, he sold them to AM Moothayah Chettiar. Thenappa, the son and attorney of the purchaser, went to live in house No. 9. The only building on Lot 55, then, was one outhouse, which has been referred to as the summer house. Thenappa built the brick retaining wall and planted a hedge at the top of the wall. His object was to build a house facing Claymore Hill on the other side of the retaining wall, and to keep the summer house for his use. He commenced but did not complete the building of house No. 4, and sold the two lots in 1932 to one Seethai Achi. House No. 9 and house No. 4, on completion, were let out to different tenants. During the Japanese occupation the other outhouse was built; it has been referred to as the servant's quarters. After the liberation of Singapore in 1945, house No. 4 was let to E Ott & Co. Ltd. In September 1945, house No. 9 was let to the defendant, who has been in possession since then. In 1947 the two lots were conveyed to Arunasalam Chettiar, the son of Seethai Achi. In 1955 Arunasalam Chettiar died. In September 1960, the trustees of the estate of Arunasalam Chettiar sold Lot 5 to Mohamed bin Abdul Aziz. In September 1962, the trustees sold Lot 55 to the plaintiff. In October 1962, Mohamed bin Abdul Aziz sold Lot 56 to Vermont Realty Ltd. The defendant is the managing director of Vermont Realty Ltd.

In arguing this appeal, Counsel for the defendant contended that the onus of establishing adverse possession over the prescribed period of limitation did not shift to the defendant until the plaintiff had not only proved title but had in addition given some evidence of permissive occupation on the part of the