Chhokar v Chhokar [1984] FLR 313

Facts

• Mr. and Mrs. Chhokar, a married couple, both contributed to the purchase and maintenance of a house that was registered solely in Mr. Chhokar’s name.
• Following marital breakdown, Mr. Chhokar arranged to sell the property without Mrs. Chhokar’s knowledge while she was temporarily absent in hospital.
• Mrs. Chhokar was unaware of both the intended and completed sale; she was not physically present when the purchaser became the registered owner.
• Upon her return from hospital, Mrs. Chhokar was denied entry to the property.
• She claimed an overriding interest based on actual occupation, contending her temporary absence should not defeat her right, especially as her furniture remained and she intended to return.
• The case posed a conflict between a registered proprietor and an individual asserting equitable rights through occupation.

Issues

1. Whether Mrs. Chhokar’s temporary absence from the property negated her claim of actual occupation under the relevant statute.
2. Whether the presence of furniture and an intention to return could satisfy the requirement for actual occupation.
3. The extent to which purchasers are required to inquire into possible overriding interests arising from actual occupation.
4. How to interpret “actual occupation” where the individual is not physically present at the time of disposition.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Mrs. Chhokar.
• Her temporary absence did not extinguish her claim to actual occupation; the court found that her intent to return and the continued presence of her furniture evidenced ongoing occupation.
• The court adopted a practical approach, holding that actual occupation may persist through temporary interruptions, provided there is clear intention to return.
• The judgment reinforced that equitable rights of those in actual occupation can override registered dispositions, emphasizing the factual nature of the inquiry.
• Purchasers are required to conduct reasonable investigations into occupancy to avoid being subject to overriding interests.

Legal Principles

• Actual occupation is a factual inquiry which does not require continuous, uninterrupted physical presence; temporary absences do not necessarily defeat the interest.
• The intention to return to the property and presence of belongings can be key determinants in establishing actual occupation.
• Schedule 3 paragraph 2 of the Land Registration Act 2002 (and formerly section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925) provides that registered dispositions may be subject to the rights of persons in actual occupation.
• Purchasers must make reasonable inquiries regarding occupation and may be bound by overriding equitable interests, even if not registered.
• The decision distinguishes cases involving mere preparation for occupation or non-adult occupants, underscoring that actual occupation hinges on the claimant’s intent and evidence of continuing occupation.

Conclusion

Chhokar v Chhokar [1984] FLR 313 remains a leading authority on the concept of actual occupation in land law, establishing that temporary absence, coupled with intent to return and evidence such as personal belongings, suffices to maintain overriding interests. The case confirms the necessity for purchasers to investigate occupancy thoroughly and highlights the balance between registered title security and the protection of equitable rights.