AV Winslow J:

This is an appeal from the judgment of FA Chua J dated 6 January 1965, dismissing the appellant's claim with costs and ordering vacant possession of Lots 130-1 and 130-2 in Town Sub-div III in the Island of Singapore together with the Chinese temple and buildings erected thereon and known as No. 27-A Tras Street (hereinafter referred to as the land and premises), in favour of the first three defendants/respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents).

The plaintiff, as the appellant then was, claimed that she had been in uninterrupted possession of the said land and premises since 1928 in circumstances whereby she acquired a title thereto by adverse possession for more than twelve years. She complained of trespass on the said land and premises by the respondents 'or either of them, or either of their servants or agents' on divers dates between 13 September 1960 and 23 April 1961. She, therefore, claimed a declaration that they were not entitled to enter, cross, occupy or remain thereon and an injunction to restrain them, their servants or agents from doing so. She also asked for an order that the entry of the registration of an order of Court dated 17 January 1961, vesting the said land and premises in the respondents and appointing them trustees of the temple thereon be expunged from the records of the Registrar of Deeds.

The fourth defendant/respondent, the State Advocate-General, was added as a defendant by an order of Court dated 24 January 1962 in the early stages of the trial to represent any possible interests of a charitable or public nature.

The respondents resisted the appellant's claim and contended that she came to live in a hut on the said land and premises only in 1950 and never at any earlier date and that any occupation by her of any part of the said land and premises was originally a trespass. She was, however, subsequently permitted to stay in the said hut for short periods by the Koh Benevolent Association of which the respondents were members. They further contended that she had never been in occupation as owner and that she had never acquired any title by adverse possession. They also claimed that the original trustees of the temple, who were the lessees of the said land and premises, entrusted the management of the temple originally in 1925 to two committee members of the Koh Benevolent Association, Koh Chwee Ngau and another who, subsequently, on the registration of the Singapore Koh Benevolent Association in 1936, continued to manage and control the said land and premises on behalf of the association. This association subsequently merged in 1953 with the Singapore Koh Clan Association. They, therefore, claimed on behalf of the Koh Clan Association, to have had management and control of the said land and premises without any break or opposition at least since 1936 until they were ousted from the said land and premises in December 1960 when the appellant forcibly took possession thereof by erecting and locking an iron gate leading thereto and that, in all the circumstances, they had committed no trespass as alleged.

They accordingly counterclaimed that the registration of the statutory declaration made by the appellant on 2 April 1959 claiming uninterrupted possession of the said land and premises should be cancelled and expunged from the records of the Registrar of Deeds and also counterclaimed for vacant possession of the said land and premises.

An examination of the previous history of the said land and premises reveals that, by an indenture of lease no 2457 dated 24 October 1903 the Crown demised the said land and premises unto the lessees (who are described in the parties clause at the commencement of the lease) as 'Lee Cheng Yan of Teluk Ayer Street, merchant, Singapore, Wee Boey of 25 Teluk Ayer Street, trader, Singapore, and Lee Chek Kian of 39 Cecil Street, trader, Singapore, the present trustees of the Chinese temple now standing on the piece of land hereby de