Richard Malanjum J:

Introduction

The matter before me for ruling is a preliminary issue between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant. Simply put the 3rd defendant is contending that the action of the plaintiff is statute-barred. The plaintiff thinks otherwise. This ruling is therefore requested by the parties before the trial proper of the action begins.

There are three other defendants in this action. However only the 3rd defendant is raising the defence of limitation. As for the 1st defendant no appearance has been entered and a certificate to that effect has been duly issued.

The Claim Of The Plaintiff

The plaintiff is seeking for several reliefs, namely:

(a) A declaration that the transfer of the said Lands to the 1st Defendant and all subsequent dealings, transfers including registration to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants be declared null and void.

(b) That the issue document of title be delivered up to the 4th defendant and that the registrar of title be rectified and that the name of the Plaintiff be endorsed on the Register Book and the Issue Document of Title.

(c) A declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of possession of the said Lands as against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants and all others deriving title from the 1st Defendant.

(d) Damages.

(e) Costs and any other relief as the Honourable Court deems fit and just.

The subject matter of the claim concerns several pieces of lands, namely, CL 115325721, CL 115325758, CL 115325749 and CL 116194140. But as between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant only three pieces of those lands are relevant, namely, CL 115325721, CL 115325749 and CL 116194140 ('the said lands').

It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff that the said lands were once registered in the name of Ngui Tet Loi, (the deceased). The plaintiff was appointed the administrator of the deceased's estate on 7 September 1987. That it is the case of the plaintiff, inter alia, that the said lands were transferred to the 1st defendant videdefective instruments in that the alleged signatures of the deceased in the Memoranda of Transfer were forged. And in turn the said lands were transferred to the 3rd defendant through the 2nd defendant as the attorney of the 1st defendant on 5 March 1996. By reason of the defective nature in the transfer of the ownership of the said lands to the 1st defendant it is the case of the plaintiff that the registration of the titles to the 1st defendant's name is therefore invalid, null and void. And in turn it is asserted that the execution of the purported power of attorney by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant was made 'in an illegal and invalid capacity'. Thus, a declaration is therefore sought that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the said lands as against, inter alia, the 3rd defendant having derived titles of the same from the 1st defendant. Rectification of the Register Book and the Issued Document of Title is also being prayed for.

The Contention Of The 3rd Defendant

The defence of the 3rd defendant on the issue of limitation is found in para. 6 of the statement of defence and reads:

The 3rd Defendant will further say that the Plaintiff's claim herein is statute barred under the Limitation Ordinance as the cause of action accrued on the date the Plaintiff was allegedly appointed the administrator of the deceased's estate, on 13th July 1987.

The date of appointment of the plaintiff as the administrator of the estate of the deceased is erroneous and has since been noted to be on 7 September 1987.

In contending that the claim of the plaintiff is statute-barred learned counsel for the 3rd defendant has taken a three-pronged approach. Firstly he submits that there was a failure on the part of the plaintiff to file a reply after he was served with the statement of defence which raised inter aliathe defence of limitation. Order 18 r. 3(1) and r. 8(1) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 were cited. And that according to learned counsel