Section 1330

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 13846/2553 (2010)

   The protection given by section 1330 to a person who buys in good faith at an auction ordered by the court passes to a person who later buys from that purchaser: as successor in title he enjoys the same protection, even if he knew when he bought that an occupier had long been on the land, and even though the occupier has possessed for more than twenty years and holds a certificate of use.

   Bank K bought the disputed land in good faith at an auction ordered by the court and was protected under section 1330 even though the land was not the defendant's or the judgment debtor's. The plaintiffs bought from Bank K and, as successors in title, enjoyed the same protection. It made no difference that they had not bought at the auction directly, or that they knew when they bought that the defendant had long had a house and other permanent buildings there, or that he had possessed and worked the land for more than twenty years without objection and held a certificate of use (NS.3): none of that could be set up against their right. When they gave notice to remove the buildings and leave and the defendant ignored it, they were entitled to evict him.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 588/2562 (2019)

   Section 1330 protection does not extend to a purchaser who knew of, or participated in, a collusive arrangement to deprive the true owner of their property.

   The applicant's conduct and that of the plaintiff raised suspicious circumstances suggesting the applicant knew of the collusive compromise agreement and participated in the scheme; the court therefore found the applicant did not purchase in good faith and denied section 1330 protection.

   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.