The first is that of implied by common intention easement. This would not apply as it has come to the attention of Mrs. Batsford after the purchase and there was no common intention. The next important implied by way of easement is that of Wheeldon v. Burrows, however this rule merely applies to grant only and so Mr. Brown would not be able to use this rule in his favour as he is reserving the right of easement rather than granting it. The same principle also applies under section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925, that is it refers merely to grants and not to reservation (Cooke 2006) As far as easements by way of prescription is concerned, it is an established principle that land which belonged to one person cannot be said to create an easement and thus Mr.
Brown would not be able to rely on prescription. The next are is that of Prescription at common law which means long use. However such would require a servient owner to be separate from dominant which is not present on the facts (Cooke 2006; Chapelle 2006) Thus it would not be possible for Mr.
Brown to claim easements in respect of the underground use of land of Mrs. Batsford after the purchase and a restriction can be be place on him by Mrs. Batsford. (iii) Under the unregistered and registered land principles, the transfer ownership or change in titles after conveyance differs and as such there have been various reforms brought about by the LRA. It is important to mention since Mr. Brown had conveyed the property, the rights and interests in the piece of land that had been conveyed had passed to Mrs.
Batsford. Furthermore, even though there would be differing level of time when the title would pass, the interests had passed as the land had been conveyed and any property found therein was to be the property of Mrs. Batsford. Thus it would be irrelevant whether the land is registered or not as Mr. Brown had conveyed the property to Mrs. Batsford and she had acquired all the rights and liabilities of the piece of land. Thus she would be the rightful owner of the gold chain and claim her right of the chain unless it can be proved by Mr.
Brown that he was the owner and had lost the chain. Ownership of Mr. Brown would be important because if such is shown then since the interest is not covered under the land conveyance. However, on the facts it is seen that no such ownership exists and Mr. Brown had merely found it and thus he was possibly a trespasser when he found the chain and so cannot claim the gold chain to be his.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples