7. The issue of adverse possession is the subject of this question.

Adverse
possession can be proven in Pye v Graham by proving the required degree of
exclusive physical possession and intention to possess the land to the exclusion of
all others including the paper owner. Two factors are required, namely factual
possession and the intention to possess. Factual Possession is having sufficient
physical custody and control for personal use. On the other hand, intention to
possess means the adverse possessor intended to take possession of the land and
put it to his use regardless of whether another person had a title to it. Once all of the
factors are in place, time begins to work in the adverse possessor's favour.
The fact that Charlotte was granted a permit to use the secret garden by her
neighbour Anne indicates that Charlotte is using the land with the permission of the
landlord. As a result, Charlotte will not be in adverse possession, and time will not
begin to run in her favour. In Batt v Adams, Charlotte use the secret garden to grow
vegetables. Growing vegetables does not constitute factual possession and it does
not prove intent to exclude others. While Minchinton demonstrates that the purpose
is unimportant as long as growing vegetable is present it will nevertheless amount to
physical possession. It amounted to true possession when Charlotte grow
vegetables. The best evidence of an intention to possess is unequivocal behaviour.
Growing vegetables was found to be both factual possession and intent to possess
in the Moran case. Charlotte's unequivocal conduct demonstrated both factual
possession and intent to possess when she installed a sonic device to scare the
birds and erected a Perspex roof to protect the soft fruit. In 2004, time begins to run
in Charlotte's favour. As its adverse possession period ended before December 2011
so it is controlled by the LRA 2002. Charlotte is eligible to be registered proprietor of
the land under the LRA 2002 if she has had adverse possession for 10 years.
When the Branwell House has sold to Emily, this raises the question of
whether Charlotte's adverse possession will be denied by the Emily's future specified
intended use, as Emily may desire to develop the land in the future as Pye v
Gramham. Charlotte may only have the intention to occupy rather than possess if
her use does not interfere with the Emily's future use. This might help her to get rid of
her adverse possession. Emily's future specified intended use will not deny
Charlotte's adverse possession as shown in BCC v Moran. Since she has installed a
sonic device to scare the birds and erected a Perspex roof to protect the soft fruit.
The degree of physical custody is qualifying as factual possession. Unequivocal
behaviour indicates a desire to acquire. As mention above, Charlotte is regulated by
the LRA 2002 and she is eligible to be registered proprietor of the land under LRA
2002 if she has been in adverse possession for 10 years.
However, it is argued that she was aware that she might not be allowed to
utilise the property continuously. This demonstrates that Charlotte recognised that
the land belonged to Emily since she only has the merely possesses intention to
occupy the land, not to own it. Whereas the facts show that she has done several
unequivocal actions and this might indicate that she still intends to own the land.
After ten years of adverse possession, she may register as a proprietor. The
registrar will notify the registered proprietor of Charlotte's registration. If it is within
two months, the Council is likely to oppose. While Charlotte can apply for the title of
the dispossessed proprietor again if there are no objections after another two years
of adverse possession. The Council has the power to evict Charlotte within two years
following her application for registration. If Charlotte's condition falls within any of the
exceptions stated in Schedule 6 para 5 LRA 2002, she might be registered as a
proprietor as a result of her application.

When Emily wrote to Charlotte asking her to leave the land it isn't enough to
deny the adverse possession. To exclude Charlotte, Emily must do more than write a
letter. Charlotte may depend on any exceptions in Schedule 6 para 5 to be the
proprietor upon her application as described above. The facts demonstrate that the
legal department of Wuthering Council demands to remove the picket fence at the
front of her cottage. This is regards as a border dispute. As a result, Charlotte may
be able to use the boundary dispute to establish herself as the proprietor in her
application under Schedule 6 Paragraph 5(4). To achieve success upon this claim,
the applicant's land must be adjacent to the land to which the claim relates, (ii) the
exact boundary has not been determined, (iii) the land to which the application
relates has been registered for more than one year, and (iv) the applicant reasonably
believed that the land to which the application relates existed for at least ten years of
the period of adverse possession ending on the date of the application. Charlotte can
be the proprietor following that her application has fulfilled all the elements.
In addition, the principle of unregistered title is concern. The Limitation Act of
1980 governs adverse possession, s.15 and s.17 state that it has a 12-year statute
of limitations. Charlotte is the rightful owner of the land if she has been in adverse
possession for 12 years. In s.17 LA 1980, the title of paper title owner shall be
extinguished after the expiration of the time limit. Hence, Charlotte is entitled to be
the proprietor of the land if he completed 12 years of adverse possession.