Section 1336: Right of owner to recover property and to prevent unlawful interference

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 15315/2558 (2015)

   A registered owner may normally sue to recover his land under section 1336, but where an earlier Supreme Court judgment has already held that his acquisition of that land was not in good faith, that judgment binds him: bringing the same claim again on the same title, against the occupier's spouse, is itself an exercise of a right in bad faith and fails.

   The objector held registered title to the disputed land and counterclaimed to evict the applicant and her household and to claim damages. But he had earlier sued the applicant's husband over the same plot, and the Supreme Court had dismissed that claim in judgment 2808-2809/2539 on the ground that his acquisition of the land had not been in good faith. That judgment bound him. Although a registered owner may normally invoke section 1336 to evict, the Court held that bringing the same claim again on the same acquisition was itself an exercise of a right in bad faith, so the counterclaim for eviction and damages failed.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 4268/2562 (2019)

   Where the dispute is between heirs over the division of estate property, it is governed by the law of succession and section 1336 cannot be applied to it. The claim must then be brought within five years of the end of the administration under section 1733 paragraph two, and within one year of the death under section 1754 paragraph one.

   Defendant 1 and K. lived together from B.E. 2496 without registering their marriage and married in B.E. 2517; the disputed land was their separate property and became marital property under the law then in force. When K. died in B.E. 2542 half of it became her estate. Because the case concerned the division of that estate among K.'s heirs, the Court held it was governed by the law of succession and section 1336 could not be applied. Defendant 1, as administrator, had transferred the land to defendant 2 on 27 November B.E. 2546, which ended the administration, and the plaintiffs sued on 10 September B.E. 2558, nearly twelve years later, so the claim was barred under section 1733 paragraph two. It was also barred under section 1754 paragraph one, since defendant 2 had possessed for himself and not on the other heirs' behalf.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 8155/2561 (2018)

   An owner's right to develop land under section 1336 is limited only by restrictions that are clearly stated in the subdivision permit or applicable law, not by implied conditions.

   A land allotment permit and building permit for an empty plot did not, on their face, indicate any restriction to two-storey construction; the owner's right to use and build on their land under section 1336 remained subject only to restrictions actually contained in the subdivision permit conditions.

   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.