Chhokar v Chhokar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[1984] FLR 313
| Chhokar v Chhokar | |
|---|---|
 A co-owner occupied house on this street was the subject matter. | |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Full case name | Kuldip Kaur Chhokar v Harbhajan Singh Chhokar (and Tarsem Lal Parmar, responded, third party) |
| Decided | 1 November 1983 |
| Citations | [1983] EWCA Civ 7 [1984] FLR 313 |
| Case history | |
| Prior actions | The appellant failed before Eubank J in the High Court, Family Division |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Cumming Bruce LJ Reeve J |
| Keywords | |
| Actual occupation; constructive trust | |
Chhokar v Chhokar [1984] FLR 313 is an English land law case concerning constructive trusts law and widening the natural meaning of "actual occupation" (which protects the occupier by virtue of the Land Registration Act 2002, Schedule 3, being an overriding interest). The facts of the case showed an intention to do a woman out of her (and her children's) occupational interest in a matrimonial home, as the new co-owner buying his share from the husband knew of her situation from the outset and wished to resell the property. The court confirmed in these exact circumstances her interest was overriding at the time when she was in hospital and it was a constructive trust.
Mr. and Mrs. Chhokar married on 18 April 1975.
May 1977: Mr. Chhokar bought 60 Clarence Street, Southall, for the purchase price of £9250 with a deposit of £700. Mrs. Chhokar substantially contributed to the family fortunes to the tune of approximately £3000.
1978: There were matrimonial difficulties and they both travelled to India to visit their parents. Mr. Chhokar tries to abandon her in India but Mrs. Chhokar returns in November 1978, a few weeks later.
December 1978: An acquaintance of Mr. Chhokar, Mr. Parmar, visits the house under the guise of a potential lodger. They sign a contract of sale for the marital home for £12700 (an undervalue) and the date of completion was fixed at 12 February. This was the date on which Mrs. Chhokar was scheduled to deliver their second child in hospital.
However, Mrs. Chhokar did not deliver on 12 February. She delivered on the 16th and so the men deferred the completion of the sale until then. Mr. Parmar then put the house on the market for £18,000. When Mrs. Chhokar returned, she discovered the locks had been changed. She broke in but was forced out by Mr Parmar who threatened and assaulted her. Mrs. Chhokar managed to gain entry to the house again and stayed put.
The question for the court was whether Mrs. Chhokar could be said to be in 'actual occupation' even though she was not physically present in the house at the time of the transfer (sale).