Raj Properties Limited v (1) Harjivan Saujani (2) Manjula Saujani (Easements and profits a prendre : Easements and profits a prendre) [2019] UKFTT 165 (PC) (05 February 2019)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) >> Raj Properties Limited v (1) Harjivan Saujani (2) Manjula Saujani (Easements and profits a prendre : Easements and profits a prendre) [2019] UKFTT 165 (PC) (05 February 2019) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/PC/2019/165.html Cite as: [2019] UKFTT 165 (PC)

Decision summary
REF/2018/0067

Case reference	REF/2018/0067
Date of decision	05/02/2019
Adjudicator	Acting Principal Judge Michael Michell
Applicant	Raj Properties Limited
Respondent	(1) Harjivan Saujani (2) Manjula Saujani
Main Category & Sub Category
Category	Easements and profits a prendre
Sub Category	Construction of express grant
Secondary Category & Sub Category
Category	Easements and profits a prendre
Sub Category	Construction of implied grant
Decision notes	[2019] UKFTT 165 (PC). Application to register the benefit of a right of way. The initial application claimed a prescriptive right of way, but in the Statement of Case and at the hearing, the Applicant claimed that the right of way was granted by a 1988 transfer. Held that there was no physical means of access from the allegedly dominant land to the allegedly servient land at the date of alleged grant and no such means of access was in existence in or before 2009. No right of way was granted by the use of the words “rights privileges easements and quasi-easement … now enjoyed by the property transferred against the adjoining property”. Also held that as a matter of construction no right of way arose from the use of the words “capable of being enjoyed by the adjoining property over the property hereby transferred”. Those words meant “capable of being enjoyed as at the date of the transfer”. If the words of the 1988 transfer were to be construed as intending to grant easements to arise at a future date (e.g. when there was a physical means of access between the two parcels of land), no right of way would have arisen because of the rule against perpetuities. The physical means of access between the two parcels within the period of 21 years from the date of the 1988 transfer.
Download decision(s)	[2019] UKFTT 165 (PC)

Case reference

REF/2018/0067

Date of decision

05/02/2019

Adjudicator

Acting Principal Judge Michael Michell

Applicant

Raj Properties Limited

Respondent

(1) Harjivan Saujani (2) Manjula Saujani

Main Category & Sub Category

Category

Easements and profits a prendre

Sub Category

Construction of implied grant

Decision notes

[2019] UKFTT 165 (PC). Application to register the benefit of a right of way. The initial application claimed a prescriptive right of way, but in the Statement of Case and at the hearing, the Applicant claimed that the right of way was granted by a 1988 transfer. Held that there was no physical means of access from the allegedly dominant land to the allegedly servient land at the date of alleged grant and no such means of access was in existence in or before 2009. No right of way was granted by the use of the words “rights privileges easements and quasi-easement … now enjoyed by the property transferred against the adjoining property”. Also held that as a matter of construction no right of way arose from the use of the words “capable of being enjoyed by the adjoining property over the property hereby transferred”. Those words meant “capable of being enjoyed as at the date of the transfer”. If the words of the 1988 transfer were to be construed as intending to grant easements to arise at a future date (e.g. when there was a physical means of access between the two parcels of land), no right of way would have arisen because of the rule against perpetuities. The physical means of access between the two parcels within the period of 21 years from the date of the 1988 transfer.

Download decision(s)

[2019] UKFTT 165 (PC)

First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)

Decision summaryREF/2018/0067

Decision summary
REF/2018/0067