Question 1. A held legal title fee simple in Blackacre – he used this land as a pig farm -. B held the legal fee simple im Blueacre , land adjacent to Blackacre ‘s western boundayr and used by B as an allotment for the cultivation of flowrs and vegetables.
The legal fee simple in Redacre , land adjacent to Blackacre ‘s eastern boundary , was vested in C who intended to use Redacre for purposes similar to B;s when a legal elase held by D expired in 1995. D a retailer of motor cars im te nearets town , leased Reedacre to use as an area to store exercess stock. The tirles to thesee three plots are not rgeistered
In 1989 A moved some pigs onto Blueacre as Blackacre was overcrowded. A was never disturbed in his pssessoom largely because B became insane several weeks sfter A took possession . In 1991 A entered Redacre and established a large vegetable garden, marking it off with a row of bricks. In 1990 D had diversifief hsi business and no ;onger found it needful to sue Redacre but retained it against contringncies.
In 2004 E approahced A with a view to purchasing Blackacre inclsuding the land on the western and easten boundaries in A’s apparents pccupation. E is concenred that A may not be able to show good title, particulalrly as he has heard that D is proposing to surrdener his elase to C.
This is rather complex.
A has Blackacre in fee simple/
B has legal fee simple on Blueacre. A then moves pigs there. B has gone insane.
C has legal fee simple in Redacre. D has a legal lease of this that expires in 1995. A eneters Redacre and makes a vegetable garden putting a row of brick s there.
None of this is registered.
E want to buy Blackacre from A.
The intentions of the owners for future use of these plots is irrelevant. Generally speaking, in English law motive is not pertinent.
B has gone made. Time does not run against the title of the mentally ill. Because he is incapacitated he is unable to comprehend what has happened to his land and take the needful action to remove the adverse possessor. Otherwise A having his pigs there would be occupation as in Pye v Graham.
A has occupied Redacre and shown an intention to possess by putting the bricks there but this is not enough to keep people out. Anyone who entered it would see this.
There is no reaons why E should not be able to buy Blackacre from A.
If someone wanted to stop an adverse possessor from gaining title to unregistered title then all the paper owner need do it register the title with the Land Registry.