In other words, in principle a person in possession of land must either have apossessory title to ownership (i.e. as an adverse possessor) or have a lease of theland, or have some other proprietary interest in the land which carries with it theright to possess it.We have said that this is clear in principle, but it has to be said that this is not aview uniformly recognised by the courts. In order to assess the significance of theseapparent departures from principle, however, it is first useful to enumerate therecognised ways in which possession can be split off from ownership in the case ofland, apart from by the grant of a lease.The list is not long: if you are in possession of land and you are not the absolutebeneficial owner, or a trespasser with a possessory title to ownership, or a tenant,you will fall within one of the following categories:1 A legal mortgagee who has exercised his right to possession. A legal mortgagee has aninherent right to possession of the mortgaged land. As we see in Chapter 18, this isbecause a legal mortgagee of land either has, or is deemed to have, a lease of the land.2 A mortgagor allowed to remain in possession by the mortgagee. It is established law thatan owner who has granted a legal mortgage but has been allowed to remain inoccupation pending default is in possession. This is so whether he has been allowed toremain in possession at the will of the mortgagee or on contractually enforceable termsthat the mortgagee will not exercise its right to possession until default. After someuncertainty, the courts concluded that, in such circumstances, the mortgagor does nothave a merely personal right to occupy as against the mortgagee, nor is he a subtenantof the mortgagee (unless it is clear that this was what the parties intended). Instead, hehas a sui generis possessory right, enforceable against third parties and enforceableagainst the mortgagee. See further Chapter 18.3 A pledgee. If it is possible to have a pledge of land (which, as we see in Chapter 18, is notcertain), then what the pledgee has is possession of the land and a right to remain inpossession until performance of the obligation secured by the pledge. This is becausethis is what a pledge is – a delivery of possession of a thing as security for the paymentof a debt or performance of some other obligation.4 A beneficiary under a private trust of land. In a private trust of land, which necessarilyinvolves ownership being split between trustee and beneficiary, a beneficiary in somecircumstances has a right to possession enforceable against the trustee and the rest ofthe world (although capable of being overreached (and therefore not affect thirdparties) by certain transactions entered into by the trustee). So, although it is technicallypossible for a trustee of land to grant a beneficiary a lease of the land (or any otherinterest in it), it is also possible for a beneficiary to have a right to possession qua
beneficiary as against the trustee – i.e. the right to possession can be attributable solely
to the trustee–beneficiary relationship. As we noted in Chapter 7, this is not true of a
public charitable trust (or a private purpose trust, although this is less likely to arise).
In a public trust, the ‘beneficiary’ of the trust is the abstract purpose of the trust (e.g. to
provide housing for homeless persons). Any land held by the trustees is held on trust to
carry out that purpose, not on trust for those on whom the trustees choose to confer
benefit (i.e. the homeless people they house). If therefore those people are given a right
626 Property Law
Downloaded from Cambridge Books Online by IP 137.132.123.69 on Sat Aug 30 04:36:48 BST 2014.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139051941.018
Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2014
to possession of the land enforceable against the trustees, this cannot be referable to
any trustee–beneficiary relationship – it can only arise because the trustees have
granted them some property interest such as a lease.
đang được dịch, vui lòng đợi..