The Gazette 1974

was not liable on the covenants in the lease after the expiration of the term, and after he had gone out of possession; the Court also refused to accept the notion of a parliamentary conveyance as good law. Tich- borne's case has since been accepted as a leading precedent in English Law. In Ireland, Holmes, L. J.'s statement in O'Connor v. Foley (1906) 1 I.R. 20 that the title gained by a wrongdoer by adverse possession is limited by rights yet remaining unextingished, is also commensurate with the interest which the rightful owners lost by the operation of the statute, and has the same legal character", is generally accepted. The majority decision, given by Lords Radcliffe, Denning and Guest, in Fairweather v. St. Marylebone Property Co. Ltd. (1963) A.G. 510 where the ousted tenant purported to surrender to the freeholder, was : (1) That an owner in fee simple, subject to a term of years, had an estate or interest in reversion or remainder. (2) Accordingly his right of action against a squatter was deemed to have accrued at the date when the preceding estate determined, so that his estate or interest fell into possession. (3) That the effect of the extinguishment sections of the Statute of Limitations was that, when a squatter dispossessed a tenant for the statutory period, it was the tenant's title as against the squatter that was finally destroyed, and not the tenant's right or title against the freeholder. (4) Accordingly the tenant was in a position to sur- render to the landlord. (5) That, as a result of the ousted tenant surrendering the lease, the lease was determined. (6) Thereupon the freeholder became entitled to pos- session of the property. The effect of this decision is that the successors in title of a squatter on leasehold land can, by collusion between the tenant and the freeholder, be ejected, however long the landlord has been out of possession, be it 12 years, 120 years or 900 years. It seems that such a result would entirely defeat the object of the Statute of Limitations. In this case, the squatter (the plaintiff) has gained the right to possession of the premises in dispute as against the fee simple owner (the defendants), subject to the risk and possibility of for- feiture, as a result of a breach of covenant. Once the squatter has been in possession for 12 years, the title of the tenant is extinguished, and the tenant, who has lost the right to possession, can no longer eject him. The next question is whether the tenant and the freeholder can by a merger or surrender give to the freeholder the right to possession so as to defeat the squatter. This was the view of Lord Denning in Fair- weather's case when he said that he saw no difference between a surrender or a merger or forfeiture, and that, on each of these events, the lease is determined, and the freeholder is entitled to evict the squatter, even though the squatter has been on the land for more than 12 years. But, in the same case, Lord Morris, dissenting, said : "If a tenant wishes during the term to place the landlord in the position of having a right to posses- sion as against everyone, he does not do this by aban- doning such right to possession, because he must be in a position to cede to the landlord right to possession as against everyone else". It is undisputed that if a tenant made a sub-lease, and subsequently surrendered his own lease to the freeholder, the freeholder could not eject the sub-tenant during the term of the sub-lease.

Life whose leasehold interest was statute barred in favour of the plaintiff, but whose title to the freehold was not completed until its registration on 17 December. By virtue of having been a squatter with twelve years adverse possession as against the Irish Life Assurance Co., the plaintiff acquired a statutory title to the land of which he had been in possession. An interim injunc- tion had been granted against the defendants, because on 14 December 1970, the defendants were not regis- tered as full owners of the land in Folio 18621, Co. Dublin. The point at issue is whether the plaintiff can permanently restrain the defendants from entering the aforementioned land, or whether the Irish Life Co. as tenants under a long lease, whose own title has been extinguished by twelve years adverse possession by the plaintiff, can validly assign to the tenants. Furthermore the question is whether the defendants, as assignees of the tenant's interest can, by acquiring the fee simple in the land, enable the lease to be determined by merger, and the plaintiff to be dispossessed as a squatter. The matter is regulated historically by Section 34 of the Real Property Limitation Act, 1833, which provided that after 20 years from the time a person could bring an action, if he did not exercise it, the right and title to such land would be extinguished. This period of 20 years was reduced to 12 years by Section 1 of the Real Property Limitation Act, 1874. This has now been repeated in Section 13 (2) (a) of the Statute of Limita- tions 1957. The defendants contend that the freehold interest, to which they became entitled on registration, was an estate or interest in remainder, or alternatively a future interest. Section 15 (1) of the 1957 Act states that, where a claim is made under a reversion, a remainder or future interest, and no person has taken possession of the land by virtue of the interest claimed, such estate or interest shall be deemed to have accrued on the date on which they fell into possession, by reason of the determination of the preceding estate. Therefore the defendants contend that their right of action only accrued upon the determination of the preceding estate, which in this case was a lease. As the defendants acquired by assignment a leasehold interest on 5 Octo- ber, 1970, when the defendant was registered as full owner of the land, they contend that a merger took place, and consequently that the immediate reversion was vested in them. The plaintiff's contentions are as follows : (1) The object of all Statutes of Limitation is to pre- vent claims which, though originally valid, must be considered as extinguished where ancient possession is to be clothed with the right. (2) The effect of Section 13 (2) and 24 of the Statute of Limitations is to destroy the title of the lease- holder. Section 24 provides that subject to the squatter provisions of the Registration of Title Act 1964, at the expiration of the 12 year period with- in which an action for recovery of land may be brought, the title of that person to the land shall be extinguished. Before 1892, it was widely accepted that the effect of Section 34 of the 1833 Act was to convey the estate of the ousted person to the squatter. In Tich- borne v Weir (1892), 67 L.T. 735, the English Court of Appeal held that the person who had been in possession adverse to the tenant for a number of years

267