Property Law: Analysis of Ownership and Property Disputes

This property law assignment analyzes a case study involving Raheem's purchase of a technologically advanced house and subsequent disputes over ownership. The report explores issues related to the removal of pre-existing property, the impact of creative differences among co-owners, and the implications of the Law of Property Act 1925, specifically concerning tenants in common and joint tenancy. The analysis covers rules related to ownership, including severance and the right of survivorship, and applies these principles to the case, considering options for Raheem, such as negotiating with co-owners, buying out their shares, or partitioning the property. The report concludes with recommendations on how to resolve the ownership disputes, considering the legal rights and interests of all parties involved.

Property Law
Student Name
Student ID

Table of Contents
Models of Ownership......................................................................................................................3
Issue.............................................................................................................................................3
Rule..............................................................................................................................................4
Application..................................................................................................................................5
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................7
Trusts...............................................................................................................................................8
Issue.............................................................................................................................................8
Rule..............................................................................................................................................9
Application..................................................................................................................................9
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................11
Covenants......................................................................................................................................12
Issue...........................................................................................................................................12
Rule............................................................................................................................................13
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................16
Easements......................................................................................................................................18
Issue...........................................................................................................................................18
Rule............................................................................................................................................19
Application................................................................................................................................19
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................21
Bibliography..................................................................................................................................23

Models of Ownership
Issue
Raheem discovered a very unique house which property has named Concept 2019. As Raheem
belongs to the pioneer field of electronics, for such reason, he wanted his house to be a showcase
with such modern technology. After purchasing the property, Raheem saw that some of the
property with which Raheem was particularly interested had already been taken by Dr Rodriguez
who is the seller of this particular house. The properties which were taken by the seller were the
titanium fence of the garden and for such reason, the adjoined fence posts of the ground have
disturbed. There was a big LCD screen featured, which was also removed by the seller. For such
reason one of the four walls of the room affected the decoration of the room. However, the other
three walls were decorated with modern art. For removing such things, whatever the damage
made has been repaired; however, Raheem gets disappointed for not to have such ultra-modern
materials.
On the other hand, Raheem is the owner of Shopping Mall named HyperNova which provides
the most futuristic and promising experience and for such reason, Raheem able to develop such a
concept related to fusing the reality with the virtual reality by putting the intangible products on
the physical spaces. Raheem made some friend Zhi, Hamish and Martha in the time of travelling
and set that when they will return to England they will purchase a house together. They decided
to purchase a single house as they wanted to share different ideas at day or night through a
virtual reality headset. However, after living for some days like brothers and sisters they started
to experience in individual creative differences. Everyone gets frustrated and started to argue
with different futuristic technology which has less physicality. For such reason, Hamish offered
for selling his portion and he decided to stay another place and Zhi decided to start his own
business. On the other hand, Martha decided to give her share to her niece.
The case involves issues regarding ownership of the property purchased by Raheem. At the time
of purchasing the property, it was identified that Raheem has great compassion regarding
technology-based products. With this concern, it can be analysed that Raheem wanted to
continue with the products that were present in that property before he purchased the same.

However, the initial owner of the property wanted to remove some of his concerned products
before he gave away the property for sale. Raheem further wanted to input the best possible
technologies inside his property and therefore was concerned about the existing structure of the
same. This included his concern for the removal of certain products from the property which
might affect his plan for decorating the house. There was another issue which has risen after
purchasing the house. As Raheem and his friends were doing argument for creative differences
everyone left the house being frustrated and wanted to sell their parts and now Raheem must
analyze about the implications which able to concern about ownership of the property.
Rule
In the United Kingdom, there is a law called the Law of Property Act 1925 where its Section 36
describes that the tenants in common generally own individual as well as undivided interest over
the related property between two or more than two people1. However, unlike the other individual
Joint ownership forms, such interests can be owned in different types of percentages. Though a
tenant can be the common pass along with the other owners with such traditional documents the
major interest cannot able to pass the interest which does not pass over the law related to other
owners which means, if three different people have a home for vacation in common and in that
meantime, one of the three owners dies, then the ownership of that dead person does not pass
automatically towards the other owners2. Moreover, such deceased's interests will not go through
for probate JTWROS unlikely. Such a thing can cause different complex issues if the other
owners wish for putting the related property up for the sale through the other owners will not be
able to conduct such probate process completely. If they probate once then the related taxes have
to be handled in the following manner- such deceased's interest in the related property can be
gone to the owner's heir as well as the received heir which interests at such a current market
value or stepped-up basis. Such types of value related to the deceased's value can include the
estate of the dead owner. However, if the related gets sold out, then such taxes will be regarding
the entire value of that related property. This means, even though the related owners have
apportioned regarding their relevant percentage related to lose or profit according to their tax
returns.
1 Law of Property Act 1925 c. 20 (Regnal. 15 and 16 Geo 5)
2 Nam-Wook Kim, 'The Footsteps Of Administrative Law And Public Land Law - Focusing On Land Planning Law
-' (2019) 87 Korean Public Land Law Association

Application
From the very first of the case study, there are a lots of issues which were analyzed and
according to those analyses it can be said that it is necessary to check the agreement paper which
was signed during the time period of purchasing the house as there are lots of ultra-modern
properties have been taken out by the seller Dr Rodriguez. Therefore, Raheem needs to check
once the agreement paper if there was written that those properties will be taken by the seller or
not3. If there was written nothing such, then Raheem can demand those ultra-modern properties
to give him return as Raheem was also interested in those properties. As Raheem is very
compassionate with such advanced technological products than by checking for another time can
be very beneficial for him as there is a probability to get back the LCD screen and Titanium
fences of the garden. However, there is not an end. As the house was purchased by four different
owners named Raheem himself and his three friends Zhi, Hamish and Marhta; therefore, as per
being his related concept, he was trying to fuse the virtual reality with the actual reality by
putting the intangible products o the physical spaces. He does not like faltering spaces. However,
for being with three more owners they have different choice of creativity. Therefore, it is not
possible to retain the creativity of four different owners at the same place. Therefore, Raheem
has two choices, one is to discuss with their other friends and set up with negotiating to each
other or he can select his portion from that individual house and he can decorate that portion with
his desire. In this way, he will able to avoid the argument and can stay together as they live
before.
Moreover, as an owner of the house, Raheem has the right to manage such situation with the help
of such legislation which generally exists for providing certainty which is about to be affected
the related intention of Raheem himself4. However, it is the most necessary than the realm which
is related to properties and wills on which the wills are generated and constructed for accordance
with such type of intention related regarding the deceased. In a certain time, such related
intentions can be the major subject of getting dispute through which the case can have the
judgment which will have to divine about such intention truly was. However, Raheem can have
the opportunity to ask here for advice regarding a question that can have seemed to be express
3 Juanita Roche, 'HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925: THE RETURN OF
FRANKENSTEIN' (2018) 77 The Cambridge Law Journal.
4 Michael W. Poulsom, 'S.62 LPA 1925: Restating The Case For Reform' (2017) 9 International Journal of Law in
the Built Environment.

different wishes related to the deceased ad will not ever come to fruition as for the short of delay
in delivering any vital document. In this very case, Raheem and his friends wished to stay in a
joint tenancy which can exist between Raheem and his friends concerning such a property which
he or Raheem wished to live. However, from them, one individual owner decided to give her
niece and that is why for different situations Raheem got trapped and does not get analyzed how
to get rid off from such a situation5. Here, he can have another two choices- one is to buy the
entire house at this situation and if Raheem does this, they will get the opportunity to modify the
entire house in his way. And secondly, if he goes with his other friends' decisions, then he can
have the chance to modify only his particular portion. However, he has the ability to purchase his
section of the house too.
As the clear form of the above sections, it can be analyzed that the very notice can be served
unilaterally by individual joint tenants with the others. However, it can be very helpful for
Raheem and his other recipients for acknowledging or sign the very notice for indicating which
they have to receive the agreement and understand about the related and effective outcomes
which will not be the necessary fact to be valid by achieving such severance. However, here
Raheem can also set up a new agreement with whom his friends wanted to sell their portions of
the house. This will be the best strategy for Raheem to set negotiation with the new owners. In
this way, he can have the opportunity to build up a new agreement paper to sign it. Therefore, he
will get the chance to reset his tenant policy to manage by his self. By having served the notice
he can have the right to register the house as a common or usual tenancy which is termed as the
right of survivorship. Such trademark can be very beneficial for Raheem to develop such a joint
tenancy and may have able to grave such consequences for an individual party from proceedings.
By knowing about the behoves practitioners initially to consider with the new client or owner
likely about the different advantages and disadvantages related to severance and particularly the
better for the owner in retaining the right related to survivorship. Particularly, the major
importances of the joint tenancies generally have the doctrines regarding to survivorship as well
as the four different unities. Such survivorship can have the process through which an individual
5 Graeme Kleiner and Jonathan Harris, 'The Application Of Section 61 Of The Trustee Act 1925: The Court’S
Dubious Prerogative Of Mercy?' [2016] Trusts & Trustees.

joint tenant can take such interest to other joint tenants entirely upon leaving of the any other co-
owner6.
Conclusion
As per the law, Raheem has to deal with other partners of the room. The ideological conflict has
led to the aggravating conflict between each other. There is a difference of opinion emerged as
all of them have equal rights of ownership towards the house. Each of them is to receive an equal
share from the property. Raheem is the one who has the responsibility to agree with everyone to
a meeting where they need to conclude to divide the portion. As Raheem is ready to buy the parts
of few, some wanted to sell their parts. Raheem has to buy the portion of the property of those
who wanted to sell with the one who wanted to transfer his rights of ownership with one of his
relatives. Collaborating with the niece of Martha, he needs to buy the entire property to protect if
he has enough fortune; otherwise, the property is to be sold with the agreement of all members
including Marth and her niece. In case Martha and her niece are not agreeing with the sale of the
property, the property can be sold separating the portion of the property for Martha and her
niece. If the entire property is sold, everyone receives an equal amount. If only four parts of the
property are sold, excluding Martha, the amount will be equally divided among the four
partners. If Martha and Raheem could make them leave the possession of the property instead of
agreed compensation they are to pay, the property will be divided between Martha and Raheem.
It will be better if all the partners are agreed to conduct the usual business or making them agree
to sell the property and share the amount equally. Raheem requires playing leadership to unite all
the members to dispose of the entire property or buy the entire house with Martha and her
appointed heir from all three partners.
6 Sadia-Kacou C and others, 'Presence Of Susceptible Wild Strains Of Anopheles Gambiae In A Large Industrial
Palm Farm Located In Aboisso, South-Eastern Of Côte D’Ivoire' (2017) 16 Malaria Journal

Trusts
Issue
Raheem bought a house which he wanted to dispose of now as his relationship with an ex-
partner, Christine. He is the proud owner of the house. The ownership of the house has been
shared by his wife as her contribution is 50k. The share of the property between each other
comes under the strain as both have been legally divorced and wanted to sell the property at the
cost of 1 million. The property has been bought at 600K. the amount of 550K has been invested
by Raheem, and he is the sole owner of the house with all documents in his favour. On the
separation of the couple, both of them wanted to share the profit of the sold house. But the tussle
arose as what will be the share of Raheem and what will be the share of an ex-partner, Christine.
Christine as a partner has played a significant role in enhancing the property value with all her
architectural efforts. The architectural efforts she employed in enhancing the property value
requires compensation as she has left her job only to improve the house outlook and display. She
is found to have put extra effort to convert the property from a product of 660k to 1m. Her effort
can hardly be denied. From the point of view of sole ownership, Raheem is found to be the only
owner of the property. Paying her only that 50K can be legible but it also requires considering
Raheem's word who mentioned that the part of the property will be shared equally. As Raheem is
no longer in a relationship with her, he needs to decide the share of profit between himself and
her ex-partner.
The case reveals that there is no proof of the words and there is no proof of the equal division of
the property. Equal sharing is the thing which Raheem found difficult as he is the sole owner of
the property. The property’s outlook and design, through they handled their finances
independently.
Ex-partner, Christine continues to insist that she had hardly started the architectural design if she
would not be assured that the property would be shared equally. The assurance to share the
property instigated her to use her full capability to redesign the structure of the property. The
enhancement of the value of the property emanated from her ability to restructure the property in
such a fashionable way. There is a requirement to separate the relevant claims of both the owners

according to the relevant laws which will help inappropriate separation of the law. The relevant
laws need to be applied to the appropriate division of share among both owners of the property.
It requires giving them proper advice to Raheem to act reasonably.
Rule
In the United Kingdom, a simple matter of trust is one, in which case the beneficiary secures
immediate as well as absolute right to the property held in the trust matter. The trustee is required
to turn 18 in England for securing ownership in the property. In this case, the other party has
attained the age of majority. In this case, the issues as identified are to be governed by the Law of
Property Act, 19257. Section 36 of this act upholds governance of joint tenancy where rights of
the trustee are defined and explained8. Therefore, the case will be governed by this particular
provision of this act. In this case, both the parties hold ownership of their concerned parts and
secure the share of other parties on their death. In the case of the conversation executed between
the two parties, terms of "implied contract" may be followed. It is to be noted that, according to
the Common Law of Contract in case of implied contract absence of written agreement is not
necessary, besides the verbal communication can be taken into account as a matter of concern for
the contract9. Therefore, the conversation as executed between the parties can be taken into
consideration for upholding the issue regarding shares and tenancy of the property. In case of,
Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk CA, the court of appeal heard the
case on the basis of joint ownership and execution of the same10. This considered the application
of the concerned legislation on the scenario of the case and delivered a decision in regard to the
matter of co-ownership.
Application
The case raises issues regarding ownership of the property held by Raheem and restiveness of
the same with his ex-partner due to the change in the market price of the property in the current
market. Therefore, it is to be clarified that whether either of the parties had property rights in
relation to the law of trusts. Qualification of shared for either party is another matter to be taken
into consideration in this case. The issue was found regarding the promise executed by Raheem
7 Law of Property Act 1925 c. 20 (Regnal. 15 and 16 Geo 5)
8 ibid
9 James C Fisher, 'Implied Terms Again, Or How Lord Hoffmann Got Treated In Marks & Spencer' (2016) 45
Common Law World Review.
10 Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk CA (1990) 61 P and CR 414)

at the time of purchasing the property to his partner. In this scenario, it is to be clarified whether
the relationship between Raheem and Christine affected the agreement between both or not. With
the circumstances, it can be identified that with the involvement of different issues, concerns
regarding trusts as well as the contract has taken place. With the law of property as considered in
this case, the validity of the issues is to be examined. According to section 36 of the Law of
Property Act, 1925, where a legitimate property is advantageously restricted to or held in trust
for any people as joint occupants, the equivalent will be held in like way as though the people
helpfully entitled were inhabitants in like manner, yet not in order to cut off their joint tenure in
value. It further states that no severance of a joint occupancy of a legitimate domain, in order to
make a tenure in like manner in the land, will be reasonable, regardless of whether by activity of
law or something else, however, this subsection doesn't influence the privilege of a joint
inhabitant to discharge his enthusiasm to the next joint occupants, or the privilege to cut off a
joint tenure in an impartial intrigue whether the lawful property is vested in the joint occupants11.
Given that, where a legitimate property is vested in joint occupants valuable, and any inhabitant
wants to cut off the joint tenure in value, he will provide for the other joint occupants a
notification recorded as a hard copy of such want or do such different acts or things as would, on
account of individual domain, have been viable to cut off the tenure in value, and immediately
which would have been imperative for offering impact to the helpful interests if there had been a
genuine severance12. Therefore, the participation of Christine can be defined in this case with
regard to the explanation of trusts in the property in issue.
On the other hand, using the term “implied contract” can be taken into consideration in regard to
the conversation executed between the parties regarding the renovation and redesign of the
property as an act of the architecture. This particular matter was subject to the execution of an
implied agreement. An implied contract is a legitimately restricting commitment that gets from
activities, direct, or conditions of at least one gathering in an understanding. It has a similar
lawful power as an express agreement, which is an agreement that is intentionally gone into and
conceded to verbally or recorded as a hard copy by at least two gatherings. With the application
of the concerned legislations, the case can be given transparency in relation to the issue as
11 'International Trust Laws' (2017) 23 Trusts & Trustees.
12 Nam-Wook Kim, 'The Footsteps Of Administrative Law And Public Land Law - Focusing On Land Planning Law
-' (2019) 87 Korean Public Land Law Association.

identified. The case, therefore, analyzed referring to the concerned legislations shares of either
party on the property in issue.
Raheem can logically pay the 8.33% and her professional fees if he goes from the paper works,
but it will be a breach of implied contract as he had promised to provide her equal share in the
said property. The property belongs to both of them as both of them are in a relationship between
each other based on the contract. According to the implied contract, they have parted away from
each other, but the terms of the agreement between each other regarding property still remain.
She wants an equal share. It is obligatory to Mr Raheem to provide an equal share of profit. If the
equal share of profit is not given, it will invite legal action from Christine, his ex-partner as she is
waiting to receive a share of 50% of the profit which is the amount of 0.5 million which is higher
than the initial investment she has made. Her role as architecture is significant as she is the one
who has made the property of such value. The value of the property rose only when she started at
the cost of her job as an architect. Her architectural effort has changed the nature, outlook and
value of the property. Her effort can hardly be denied in raising the value of the property. She
needs to be paid what she has assured of. Mr Raheem cannot deny the payment as it will be a
breach of the common law of contract.
Conclusion
As per the law, from the law of trust, it is found that Raheem has promised to share the property
equally and after that, she has begun the renovation assignment which has restricted her career as
architecture. The share of equality in profit has been assured by Raheem, but the investment of
ex-partner, Christine was only 8.33% of the total cost of the property. She just paid 50K which
she received from her legitimate father. Legally she is to be paid the 8.33% of the rate of
property on which the property is to be sold. With the 8.33% of the share, she is also to be paid
the fees of professional service. The payment of architectural fees can be as per the standard cost
of the service in the United Kingdom. But Raheem cannot escape from the Law of Property Act,
1925 as its section 36 explained the concept of implied contract in which Raheem will have to
share the property equally as she began the architectural renovation after the implied contract
that she will be provided with an equal share of the property. If she is not paid the equal share, it
will be a breach of implied contract as he has promised in their good times. If the words of the
good times are not kept, there will be a breach of the law. It may invite legal action from his

Christine, his ex-partner. Therefore, it is here necessary to pay her equally from 0.5 million as a
share of profit in which her initial investment is already added. According to the point of view of
the investment process, she is to receive only 830K but as per the promise made by the sole
owner, she is to receive half the value of the profit gained from the investment. He needs to pay
to her only 0.5 m as per the promise made by him in their good time.
Covenants
Issue
In any such cases it is important to understand the entire aspect related to the entire care for
being able to clearly identify the potential issues related to the same. Apart from the mentioned,
it is specifically important to note that the issue as identified is correspondingly related to the
aspect of convention in the perspective of law. Therefore, it is specifically important to mention
that the initial orientation of the entire matter has been escaladed due to the lack of additional
funds for Raheem. Thus, he sold off a part of his land to Mr. Khan for the required funds and
broke a deal with him for the following terms to be maintained, the land sold to him could not
comply any business in future, the owner of the land would be potentially responsible for
maintaining a wooden fence, at least 2 meter high with no coloring and maintaining a natural
color, upkeep of the water pipes for both the land would be maintained by the buyer of the plot
Other than the stated, it is fundamentally important to understand the aspect that the issue had
not been in consideration while Mr. Khan had the ownership to the plot. It had been further
understood by the details of the case that Mr. Kham had prominently built a residential property
at the plot. However, with the course of time the individual had further sold the proper to Ms.
Olivia Liu.
The stated individual, Ms. Luihas been observed to be a self-proclaimed artist and a famous
sculptor. Given the course of time, it had been observed that she has been conducting business
over the land and has been avoiding to the previously agreed terms between the original provider
of the plot and the current owner of the plot. Apart from the stated, it is specifically important to
shed some light over the ongoing unrest that had been on the receiving end from Ms. Lui. Due to
the nature of her career or her stands, it has been observed that she specializes in ‘night sky’