Home > Property Law
Question: ‘A principal of the 1925 property legislation was to simplify conveyancing and the proof of title to land. To this end equitable interests were to be kept off the title to the legal estate and could be overreached on a conveyance to a purchaser who took free from them’.
(Peter Gibson L.J. in State Bank of India v Sood [1997] 1 All ER 169, 172-173.)
Critically analyse the law relating to overreaching in light of the above dictum.
Answer: This question requires a critical analysis of the law relating to overreaching in light of the above dictum. This in turn requires consideration of the Law of Property Act 1925 together with the reforms contained within the Law of Property Act 2002 in light of the law on overreaching. Cases such as City of London Building Society v Flegg and State Bank of India v Sood will be referred to in this essay, as particular emphasis will be placed upon the law on overriding interests and the use of overreaching as a tool to take free from those interests. This will then be followed by a discussion on whether keeping equitable interests off the title documentation has in fact simplified the conveyancing procedure or not....(short extract)
To download the full answer, please Sign in or Register then make a payment or submit 3 of your essays.
- Subject: Law
- Course: Property Law
- Level: Degree
- Year: 2nd/3rd
- Mark: 67%
- Words: 2583
- Date submitted: June 12, 2011
- Date written: April, 2010
- References: Yes
- Document type: Essay*
- Essay ID: 3811
