Determining Legal Rights and Obligations in Registered Land Scenario

This assignment analyzes a scenario involving registered land, focusing on the legal rights and obligations of various parties, including Kenneth, Davinia, Philip, Saeed, and Hilary. The analysis delves into key concepts such as registered land, overriding interests, beneficial interests, easements, and leases, referencing relevant sections of the Land Registration Act 2002. The student examines whether the rights of Davinia, Philip, Saeed, and Hilary are binding on Kenneth, considering issues like actual occupation, valuable consideration, and the impact of registered and unregistered interests. The assignment explores the application of legal principles, including resulting trusts, implied easements, and the requirements for overriding interests, to determine the outcome of each party's claim. The conclusion summarizes the extent to which Kenneth is bound by the claims of the other parties.

Intro
The above question develop various issues which needs several statement. It has related to the
notion of registered land. This registered house that means the control and power have been
move in a register.The question want to know to suggest Kenneth,if there is any legal right to
Davinia,Philip, Saeed and Hilary? If yes, then they all are binding with Kenneth?
The issues that are develop can be found in sec 26 and 29 LRA 2002 in that there is a legal rules
for this. In relation with these rules a buyer is bound by for legal consideration of the certified
name who will finished his or her buying process through registration. Through restricted
notification it can be protected by detail on register. This interest can be taking as overriding
under this schedules. This can be completed with the registration of that property.
Section 27 (1) LRA 2002 is define the nature of registered land or regarding property can be
completed through registration then it cannot be worked at law until all legal formalities
completed properly and in this case with regard to Kenneth, the nature of registration is
transferable. They require to register his land purchase under this section 27 which makes him a
legal owner of property.
Philip’s rights: Philip share some part of the purchase money of land but there is not included
his name in the register. In the view of fact that, It does not make clear about his contribution
whether it is a loan or a gift as a part of shareholder. A direct trust was develop by confirming
interest of Philips where the purchase price or equity are joint between more than two parties and
the name of house is placed in one the party. In that situation equity will assume to develop trust
in support of another party. This develop trust will be force where it has been an incomplete
disposition of a benefited interest this is seen in Dyer v Dyer [1788].1 However, the presumption
of this resulting trust will not develop in that case where the purchase price is contribute as a loan
or gift. Philips right is binding on Kenneth if, he does not paid the purchase price of property to
maria as a loan or gift. There is a relationship between parties by showing that resulting trust
may be rebutted Buffrey v Buffrey.
1 Dyer v Dyer [1788] All ER Rep 205

There question of Philip that he live in the house for 3 months in each year when he was out of
the country. It can be known that the charge of party who live in a land may tie with a purchaser
( Subject to condition), even if that charge not to shown in the register. There is no define of
effective job. In case there is a question of concept, it is a necessary that there is a presence
physically than some claim in law. It also include there is a few level of duration and coherence.
Describe in this case of william and Glyn's bank LTD v Boland, Abbey National v Cann, Lioyds
Bank v Rosset and Chhoker v Chhoker. So, as per the above line it can be told that Philip was in
an effective job. Valuable consideration of buyer of a registered property and it is registered
through purchased that will be free with the help of notice and dominant charge. LRA 2002
schedule 3 para .2 It is clear that the charge of a people in effective job of the estate is an active
right addition of effective job. So, if dominant the charge of Philip then it will tie with Kenneth.
It can be noted that if the people with the charge that was asked about it before the buyer bought
the property and she or he has failed to show the charge when they could favourable which have
been foreseen to expose it, then resident's charge will not devise. It was not considered in the
question whether Kenneth examine the land before buying.
Davina's right: Davinia is the neighbourhood. Great easement are to be claim by her over the
Maria's garden, which was a route to the church. It is a right to do anything over the other
people's property. In the case of Davinia there is a claim of easement not with Maria. Under the
law of property act 1925 s.701(1)(a), If is accepted as a legal process where parties will be added
in agreemnent after the acceptance as per LRA 2002 s.3 para. 3 an implied statement that is
given legally is enough to make a purchser boundable for considerable value only if the above
mentioned agreements is applied. It can also be asserted that it is registered under the registered
act 1965 2) 3) Exclusive law accepted by legislation would be apparent on a fairly investigation
of the property 4). It has been stated that under one year before the disposal if the advantage is
true as needed, not to be defenced by introduction of notice on the register under section 34 LRA
2002. This question would not have raised if Kenneth had examined the land before buying. So,
he will not be able to bound of any charge of Davinia.
Saeed's right: Saeed was given rental for one year, it was started after 5 months from the date of
the rental. If it is a legal rental, then it is for one year will be charge interest which disallow
under schedule 3 para. 1 LRA 2002 unless it give an impact in ownership which is more than 3

month under schedule 3 para. 1 and s.27 (2)(b)(ii) LRA 2002, this granted give an impact in an
ownership after the completion of 3 months that has been finished through registration to bound
the buyer in that case Saeed must be register it. If the rental is equally, then it can be protected by
given notification under s.34 LRA 2002 unless In a case of Saeed actual occupation, this will be
interest that overrides in the schedule 3b para.2 LRA 2002.
Hilary's right: Hilary claimed that Maria enter into a contract by sell the property to her. There is
a question in that situation that whether Hiliary's claim contract is bound on Kenneth and if she
as written agreement right. So, presuming as written agreement, it can be disagree that she as a
right of legal principle under s.115 LRA 2002, Moreover that right would only be effectual if
Hilary was in determinable actual occupation during investigation of the land. It should be famed
that it was note declared if Kenneth examined the land before buying. It could also be told that
Hilary as an overriding of interest if she had certified under the schedule 3 Para.2 and Hilary
might have a patent right that are able of binding with the third person. Nevertheless, Hilary's
right cannot be overriding as it not fall under the definitions in schedule 3.
In conclusion, in above topic discussion it can be said that there is no legal boundation for
Kenneth thus he is not bpounded by Philip, Saeed and Davinia however Hillary has a little tie on
Kenneth.