Section 1300: Cancelling a registration that prejudices an earlier right

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 13689/2556 (2013)

   The protection in section 1300 for a transferee for value in good faith does not save a purchaser whose own transferor took the property without consideration: that transferor was never protected and had no right to pass on, and a transferee acquires no better right than his transferor, so the registration may still be cancelled.

   The deceased's two children sued to cancel successive transfers of NS.3 Kor land which was estate property that had passed to them in part under section 1599 paragraph one. Their action was brought as persons in a position to have their right registered ahead of others under section 1300, so it was neither an action about the administration of an estate barred after five years under section 1733 paragraph two nor an action in tort barred after one year under section 448. Defendant 1, a child and the administrator, had transferred the land to herself and then to defendant 2 without dividing it among the other statutory heirs, which was an unlawful transfer prejudicing the plaintiffs. Defendant 2 had received without consideration and so was outside the protection of section 1300 and had no right to sell. The Court therefore allowed cancellation even against defendant 3, who had bought and registered in good faith and for value, on the principle that a transferee acquires no better right than his transferor.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 5088/2554 (2011)

   A judgment creditor who obtains a consent judgment ordering land to be transferred to him, but who does not enforce it within the ten years allowed by Civil Procedure Code section 271, loses the right to enforce and with it his standing as a person in a position to have his right registered ahead of others under section 1300; he cannot then apply to have his share set aside from the proceeds of the auction of that land.

   In B.E. 2538 a consent judgment ordered defendant 2 to transfer a co-ownership share in the disputed land to the applicant within two months, failing which the judgment would stand in place of a declaration of intention. Because that required both parties to register the transfer, the applicant had to enforce within ten years under Civil Procedure Code section 271. He only applied for a substitute title deed and then asked for the matter to be held over, never paying the transfer fee, which did not amount to a request to enforce the judgment. Having let more than ten years pass from the judgment becoming final, he lost the right to enforce against the land and could no longer require defendant 2 to comply. He was therefore not a person entitled to registration ahead of others under section 1300, nor a person entitled by law to enforce against the property under Civil Procedure Code section 287, and could not apply to have his share set aside from the auction proceeds.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.