Section 1375

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 1747/2562 (2019)

   Dispossession can occur only in respect of another person's land, so a defence that both claims the land as the defendant's own and asserts that the defendant seized possession from the plaintiff is self-contradictory and not clear, contrary to Civil Procedure Code section 177 paragraph two. Where that is so, no issue arises as to whether the plaintiff sued within one year of dispossession under section 1375, and a court that decides the point anyway decides outside the issues.

   The defendant's defence and counterclaim asserted both that it had seized possession of the plaintiff's land and that the disputed land, held under a notification of possession (SK.1) and land without title documents, was its own. Because dispossession can occur only in respect of another's land, that pleading was self-contradictory and not clear, contrary to Civil Procedure Code section 177 paragraph two, and no issue arose as to whether the plaintiff had sued within one year of dispossession under section 1375. The Court of Appeal Region 5's finding that the plaintiff had lost the right to sue and had no standing was therefore a decision outside the issues and improper under Civil Procedure Code section 142 paragraph one, a question of public order which the Supreme Court raised of its own motion under section 142(5) although no party had appealed on it.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 3656/2551 (2008)

   Lodging an objection to another person application for a title deed is itself a disturbance of that person possession under section 1375, but the one-year period to sue to recover possession runs from the date the possessor actually learns of the objection, not from the date it was lodged.

   The defendant had sold the disputed land to his younger brother, the plaintiff, in 1972 and stayed on in the house he had built there rent-free. His own recorded statement to the Land Office showed he had given up the intention to possess for himself, so his continued occupation was holding on the plaintiff behalf and the plaintiff had the possessory right. When the plaintiff applied for a title deed in December 1988 the defendant filed an objection in July 1989. The Supreme Court held that objection was a disturbance of possession under section 1375, but that the Trat Land Office only notified the plaintiff on 17 March 1992 - after this action had been filed - so the plaintiff learned of it only then and the one-year period had not run out.

   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.