Hassett & Ors v The Register of Titles & Anor

THE CIRCUIT COURT AN CHÚIRT CHUARDA WESTERN CIRCUIT COUNTY OF GALWAY Record No. 2023/00466 Neutral Citation: [2026] IECC 4 BETWEEN: FERGAL HASSETT, PAT HASSETT AND AONGHUS HASSETT APPELLANTS AND THE REGISTER OF TITLES AND CLAIRE KEEGAN RESPONDENTS Judgment of His Honour Judge Meehan delivered on the 23 day of April, 2026 Introduction 1. By Equity Civil Bill dated 24 October 2024, the Plaintiffs claim various reliefs including: a. … b. A declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to be Registered as full owners of all that and these lands contained in Folio 4841 County Galway, situate at Tiernascragh, Ballycrissane, Ballinasloe, Co. Galway, outlined with a red verge on the attached map. c. An Order directing the first named Defendant, Tailte Éireann to register the lands outlined with a red verge as shown on the attached map. 1 2. The procedural history to this case is relevant. The Plaintiffs lodged an Application for First Registration (“the Application”) with the Land Registry on 21 May 2021. The Second Named Defendant (“the Defendant”) objected to that application by way of affidavit sworn 24 November 2022. Tailte Éireann issued a Ruling (“the Ruling”) dated 12 April 2023 whereby registration was refused. 3. By Notice of Appeal (“the Appeal”) dated 8 September 2023, the Plaintiffs appealed the Ruling. The Appeal was grounded on an affidavit sworn by all three Plaintiffs on 8 September 2023. The Defendant swore a replying affidavit on 8 October 2024. The Circuit Court then directed a plenary hearing. The Plaintiffs issued a Civil Bill dated 29 October 2024. The First Named Defendant did not participate in the Circuit Court proceedings. 4. The case was heard in Loughrea Circuit Court on 25 February 2026. Counsel for the Plaintiffs stated that the claim was based on long possession as opposed to adverse possession. I asked the parties to provide written submissions addressing the applicability (or otherwise), firstly of section 18 of the Statute of Limitations 1957, and secondly of any alternative legal ground raised by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant delivered written submissions on 4 March 2026 and 10 April 2026 respectively. It is now clear from the submissions that the Plaintiffs’ case is based on adverse possession. 5. It is important to define the relevant lands. The Equity Civil Bill refers to an attached map. However, there is no map attached to the copy of the Equity Civil Bill contained in the Booklet of Pleadings. a. The Application refers at paragraph 1 to “34 acres, 3 roods and 4 perches being the lands comprised in Folio 4841 of the Register of Freeholders of Galway” and at paragraph 2 to “the property comprised in Folio 4841 of the Register of Freeholders County of Galway. The land was known as “Simon’s Place” among the Keegan Family”. b. The Notice of Appeal dated 8 September 2023 is titled; “In the matter of Sections 19 and 49 of the Registration of Title Act 1964 and in the Matter of Folio 4841 of the Register of Freeholders, County of Galway”. c. That Notice of Appeal seeks relief in respect of; “the lands described in the schedule of their Affidavit dated 28 of May 2021, namely…All that part of the lands 2 comprised in Folio GY 4841 County of Galway containing approximately 34 acres, 3 roods and 4 perches being plans 4841_1 and 4841_2 on Registry Map GY4841”. d. The Plaintiffs’s affidavit sworn on 8 September 2023 exhibits “the up-to-date certified folio of the lands”. The exhibited Folio GY4841 contains the following description: “The property shown coloured RED as Plan(s) 4841_1, 4841_2 on the Registry Map, situate in the Townland of Tiranascragh in the Barony of LONGFORD, in the Electoral Division of TIRANASCRAGH.” e. The Property Registration Authority Map attached to the Folio (included in the exhibit) depicts separate two pieces of land outlined in red: 4841_1 abuts a roadway and runs North to South (assuming the map does), and 4841_2 runs North West to South East almost to the bank of the River Shannon. f. In her Land Registry Affidavit sworn 24 November 2022, the Defendant avers that Thomas Keegan, her grandfather was the registered owner of the property comprised in Folio 484. At paragraph 4; “It is hereby denied that Allan Keegan at any time was in sole and exclusive beneficial occupation of 34 acres, 3 roods and 4 perches being the lands comprised in Folio 4841 County Galway and/or in sole receipt of the rents and profits thereof”. g. As set out above, the Civil Bill seeks relief in respect of “the lands contained in Folio 4841 County Galway situate at Tiernascragh, Ballycrissane, Ballinasloe, Co. Galway”. h. Mr Tuohy, auctioneer described the lands as comprising two parts; 9A comprising 22 acres, and 9B comprising 12 acres. i. In the 8 September 2023 affidavit, the Plaintiffs exhibit an “Historical Certificate from 1950 to 1st May 2022…including a Certified Map from the Tailte Éireann – Valuation Division” issued under covering letter dated 19 July 2023 from Tailte Éireann. This certificate references a map: “9AB”. The attached map, stamped by the valuation office on 19 July 2023, highlights two separate pieces of land; 9B close to the bank of the River Shannon, and 9A some distance away to the North West. These two pieces of land appear to correspond with those depicted in the Property Registration Authority map referred to at subparagraph (e) above. 3 6. It is clear from this evidence that the lands in dispute (“the Lands”) comprise the lands contained in Folio GY4841 and described thereon as “The property shown coloured RED as Plan(s) 4841_1, 4841_2 on the Registry Map, situate in the Townland of Tiranascragh in the Barony of LONGFORD, in the Electoral Division of TIRANASCRAGH.” 7. Certain matters are not in dispute. a. On 29 October 1906, the Plaintiffs’ late grandfather, Thomas Keegan, was registered as full owner of the Lands. b. Thomas Keegan was married to Margaret Keegan (formerly Bohan nee Nevin). She was a widow and had two sons from her previous marriage; Patrick Bohan and John Bohan. She owned a separate farm. Thomas Keegan and Margaret Keegan lived on that separate farm with the two Bohan sons and the couple’s eight children: Mary, Marguerite, Ambrose, Evelyn, Gertrude, Allan, Vincent and Kevin. c. Thomas Keegan died intestate in 1956, having been predeceased by his son Ambrose who died in 1929. Thomas Keegan was survived by his wife Margaret Keegan, and his seven remaining children. d. The Second Plaintiff’s evidence was that because Thomas died intestate; Margaret inherited a one third share in the Lands. The seven surviving children would each have inherited one seventh of the remaining two thirds. The operation of the Succession Act was not an issue in this case. e. Margaret Keegan died in April 1963, survived by her nine remaining children. She made a will leaving all her property to John Bohan. f. In his last will and testament dated 24 March 1999, Allan Keegan devised and bequeathed the Lands to the Plaintiffs absolutely as tenants in common in equal shares. g. Allan Keegan died on 23 November 2002. Probate of his will dated 24 March 1999 was granted to Dan Hassett on 4 September 2008. 8. The Plaintiffs’ case is that they, as Allan Keegan’s successors in title are entitled to adverse possession of the Lands. They claim that Allan Keegan exclusively and continuously occupied the Lands from Thomas Keegan’s death in 1956 adverse to the interests of his siblings. They claim to have inherited the Lands by operation of Allan Keegan’s 1999 will. 4 9. The Defendant’s case is that Allan Keegan never acquired adverse possession. She says he was not in continuous and exclusive occupation of the Lands. The Evidence 10. The Second Plaintiff said that Allan Keegan was in possession of the Lands from Thomas Keegan’s death in 1956 until his own death in 2002. He said that Allan Keegan had farmed the Lands with his father prior to 1956. 11. The Second Plaintiff said that he worked on the Lands helping his uncle Allan. He said he didn’t know whether Allan applied for adverse possession during his lifetime. He said that there was an understanding that pursuant to primogeniture Allan, as oldest son, took over the Lands. 12. In their 2023 affidavit, the Plaintiffs averred that Allan Keegan was in receipt of EU payments in respect of the Lands for the years 1993-1995. An exhibited Department of Agriculture letter dated 25 May 2023 records that certain payments were made to Allan Keegan pertaining to livestock. However, there is no indication in that letter where that livestock was kept or that the payments were related to the Lands. 13. In the same affidavit, the Plaintiffs exhibit an “Historical Certificate from 1950 to 1st May 2022…including a Certified Map from the Tailte Éireann – Valuation Division” issued under covering letter dated 19 July 2023 from Tailte Éireann. This certificate references an map: “9AB”. The attached map, stamped by the valuation office on 19 July 2023, highlights two separate pieces of land; 9B close to the bank of the River Shannon, and 9A some distance away to the North West. The “Certified History of Rateable Occupation” indicates that Allen Keegan was occupier of 9AB in 1966, Reps Mrs Thomas Keegan in 1971, and Alan Keegan in 1981 and 2002. 14. The Second Plaintiff said that from 2002 onwards, the Plaintiffs were in receipt of rent in respect of the Lands. He said that during this period, no issue was raised by the Defendant. 15. His evidence was that a grant of probate issued in respect of Allan Keegan’s estate in 2008. The executor, Dan Hassett sought to have the Lands registered in the Land Registry based on long possession. That application was advertised and the Defendant opposed it. The First Defendant refused the application and the Plaintiffs appealed to the Circuit Court. He said that the Second Defendant thereafter “went in on the lands”. 5 16. The Plaintiffs called Mr John Tuohy, auctioneer and valuer, as a witness. He said that the Lands were let to Mr Bertie Cummins from 1999 to 2022 or 2023. 17. Mr Tuohy said that his late father drew up the agreements. He said the Lands comprised two parts: 9A comprising 22 acres and 9B comprising 12 acres. Mr Tuohy swore an affidavit in September 2023 averring: “I say and believe that Allan Keegan, deceased and his successors [the Plaintiffs] have been in receipt of the rents and profits of the lands comprised in folio 4841 of the register County Galway throughout the period shown in the attached letting agreements. I further say that our practice has been in receipt of all rental payments from Bernard Cummins, William Dermody and Kevin Muldoon, tenant farmers, who has been tenants of Allan Keegan, deceased and his successors, [the Plaintiffs] for upwards of twenty years last past.” 18. Mr Tuohy exhibits a number of letting agreements, receipts and statements. These include a receipt to Mr Bertie Cummins dated 19 March 1999 for “Letting of lands ex. Alan Keegan. Lands known as ‘Simons’”. Receipts issued to Mr Bertie Cummins dated 21 March 2016, 21 March 2018, 21 March 2019, 18 March 2021, 22 March 2022 are marked “To Letting of lands ex: Keegan Estate 2019/20 as agreed: Part Folios 4841 and 5769”. 19. The exhibit includes a “Land Letting Agreement” whereby Bertie Cummins agreed to rent lands from Alan Keegan from March 1999 to February 2000. There are similar agreements covering the periods from: 1 March 2000 to 1 February 2001, 1 March 2001 to 1 February 2001 (presumably a mistake), 1 March 2002 to 1 February 2003. Further similar agreements between Mr Cummins and “Reps Alan Keegan”, cover the periods 1 March 2003 to 1 Feb 2004, 19 March 2004 to 1 February 2005, 1 March 2005 to 1 February 2006, 1 March 2006 to 1 February 2007, 1 March 2007 to 1 February 2008, 1 March 2008 to 1 February 2009, 1 March 2009 to 1 February 2010, 1 April 2010 to 30 November 2010. 25 March 2011 to 1 February 2012, 25 March 2011 to 1 February 2012, 23 March 2012 to 1 February 2013, 25 March 2013 to 1 February 2014, 25 March 2014 to 1 February 2015, 21 March 2016 to 1 February 2017, 21 March 2017 to 1 February 2018, 21 March 2018 to 1 February 2019, 25 March 2019 to 1 February 2020, 30 March 2020 to 01 February 2021, 23 March 2022 to 1 February 2023. A number of these agreements record that the rent paid was for “2 Lots”. 6 20. Mr Tuohy exhibits further “Land Letting Agreements” whereby Kevin Muldoon agrees to rent lands from Alan Keegan from: March 1999 to February 1999, 8 April 1997 to 1 February 1998, 12 March 1996 to 1 February 1997, and 1 May 1995 to 1 February 1996. 21. Mr Tuohy exhibits further “Land Letting Agreements” whereby “Reps W Dermody” agree to rent lands from Keegan Estate from: 21 March 2023 to 1 February 2024, 23 March 2022 to 1 February 2023, 30 March 2021 to 1 February 2022, 30 March 2020 to 1 February 2021, 25 March 2019 to 1 February 2020, 1 February 2018 to 1 February 2019, 21 March 2017 to 1 February 2018, 21 March 2016 to 1 February 2017. Similar Land Letting Agreements are exhibited whereby Willie Dermody agrees to rent lands from the Keegan Estate from 25 March 2014 to 1 February 2015, 23 March 2013 to 01 February 2014, 23 March 2012 to 1 February 2013, 25 March 2011 to 1 February 2012, 24 March 2010 to 30 October 2010, 1 April 2009 to 31 February 2010, 1 March 2008 to 1 February 2009, 1 March 2007 to 1 February 2008, 1 March 2006 to 1 February 2007, 1 March 2005 to 1 February 2006, 1 March 2004 to 1 February 2005 and 1 March 2003 to 1 February 2004. Before that, similar agreements are exhibited between Mr Dermody and Alan Keegan from: 1 March 2002 to 1 February 2003, 1 March 2001 to 1 February 2002, 1 March 2000 to February 2001, March 1999 to 1 February 2000. 22. Mr Tuohy exhibits a letter from Brian Tuohy to Pat Hassett dated 29 August 2005 setting out “returns of Land Letting for 2004”. This records that Bertie Cummins was the tenant at “Simons Lands” with an associated amount of 2,540 Euro. Mr Tuohy also exhibits an undated statement; “Re: Alan Keegan, deceased, Land Letting – Part of”. This records that Bertie Cummins let “Portion of Lands Around house” for 825 euro. 23. There are a number of receipts issued to Bertie Cummins from Tuohy auctioneer referring to “Letting of Lands ex: Keegan Estate Part Folios 4841 and 5769”. These are dated 11 March 2008, 25 March 2011, 21 March 2018, 21 March 2019, 19 March 2021 and 22 March 2022. It appears clear that Allan Keegan, and subsequently his estate rented lands to Bertie Cummins comprising two lots between 1999 and 2023. 24. Mr Tuohy said that every year the tenants would pay half of the rent in March and half of the rent by way of post-dated cheque in October. He said the rent was paid initially to Allan Keegan and subsequently to his personal representative, Dan Hassett. He said the Keegan estate monies were distributed through Dan Hassett, the executor of the estate to the 7 Plaintiffs. Mr Tuohy accepted that the letting agreements were not signed by the landlord or by a solicitor. They were signed by the auctioneer. 25. The Defendant’s evidence was that once the Plaintiffs applied to the Property Registration Authority, she and other family members received notification. She took legal advice and swore an affidavit. On foot of that affidavit, the Defendant said, the Authority refused the Plaintiffs’ application. 26. Ms Keegan’s asserted that Alan Keegan was not in adverse possession of the Lands. She said that there were various issues between family members including legal disputes over machinery and cattle. She said there was a dispute between her father Thomas Vincent Keegan (known as “Vincent”) and Allan Keegan in 1972. She said Allan had cattle on the Lands and was squatting on it. 27. I was provided with a letter dated 31 May 1972 from Patrick Hogan & Co, Solicitors (for Allan Keegan) to Messrs. Concannon & Co (for Vincent Keegan). That letter ventilated a number of issues between the parties. However, it is clear the letter was written after Vincent Keegan had issued proceedings against Allan Keegan and before a defence was filed. The letter concludes: “With regard to your client’s distributive share of his father’s farm this is matter for your client himself. If he wishes to prove his father’s intestacy and sell the property, [he] is free to do so and our clients will look for their distributive shares” 28. The Defendant also said that in 1977, Gertrude wrote to Masie to say that all grant monies had been paid to Vincent. She said that Vincent (the Defendant’s father) had to pay off bills in 1977. The Defendant referred to correspondence from Mrs Evelyn Hassett (nee Keegan). 29. She said there was never any acknowledgement from any family member that Allan Keegan had acquired adverse possession. He had never applied to acquire adverse possession in his lifetime. 30. She said that during the time Allan was farming the Lands, Gertrude and Kevin and Vincent were also farming the Lands. She said that her father, Vincent had a celery business on the Lands. She said that there was celery growing there in 1966. She said Vincent bought other lands in 1958. 8 31. The Defendant said that the Plaintiffs were living in Spain, Belfast and Derry and have never been in occupation of the Lands and have never farmed the Lands. She claims to have been in possession for the last three years. She said her racehorses were on the Lands for more than 8 years and her foals for two years. She said she is only living in the area for the last 10 years. She accepted that she had not been in occupation over the last 30 years. 32. The Defendant said that during the time Allan was farming the Lands, Gertrude was living with him. She said that Allan had polio as a child and found it hard to get around. Legal Submissions 33. The Plaintiffs contend that they have established as a matter of law, a legal right pursuant to section 13(2) of the Statute of Limitations 1957 to be registered as legal owners of lands contained in Folio 4841 County Galway. 34. Section 13 (2) of the Statute of Limitations provides: “13. (2) The following provisions shall apply to an action by a person (other than a State authority) to recover land— (a) subject to paragraph (b) of this subsection, no such action shall be brought after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued to the person bringing it or, if it first accrued to some person through whom he claims, to that person; (b) if the right of action first accrued to a State authority, the action may be brought at any time before the expiration of the period during which the action could have been brought by a State authority, or of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued to some person other than a State authority, whichever period first expires.” 35. The Plaintiffs cite the High Court (Clarke J as he then was) decision in Dunne v Iarnród Éireann and Another [2007] IEHC 314. The Court stated: “4.3 The general principles seem to me to be well summed up in a passage from the judgment of Slade L.J. in Powell v. McFarlane [1979] 38 P&CR 452 at 470 where the following is set out:- 9 “1. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the owner of land with the paper title is deemed to be in possession of the land, as being the person with the prima facie right to possession. The law will thus, without reluctance, ascribe possession either to the paper owner or to persons who can establish a title of claiming through the paper owner. 2. If the law is to attribute possession of land to a person who can establish no paper title to possession, he must be shown to have both factual possession and the requisite intention to possess (" animus possidendi"). 3. Factual possession signifies an appropriate degree of physical control. It must be a single and conclusive possession, though there can be a single possession exercised by or on behalf of several persons jointly. Thus an owner of land and a person intruding on that land cannot both be in possession of the land at the same time. The question what Acts constitute a sufficient degree of exclusive physical control must depend on the circumstances, in particular the nature of the land and the manner in which land of that nature is commonly used or enjoyed." 39. The Court went on to state at paragraph 4.9: “4.9 Two other legal issues are of relevance. Firstly it is common case that in order for adverse possession entitlements to accrue, a continuous possession of the land for a period of twelve years must be established. In Powell v. McFarlane Slade L.J. noted, at p. 472, that "an owner or other person with the right to possession of land will be readily assumed to have the requisite intention to possess, unless the contrary is clearly proved. This, in my judgment, is why the slightest acts done by or on behalf of an owner in possession will be found to negative discontinuance of possession." It is, therefore, important to emphasis that minimal acts of possession by the owner of the paper title will be sufficient to establish that he was not, at least at the relevant time of those acts, dispossessed. The assessment of possession is not one in which the possession of the paper title owner and the person claiming adverse possession are judged on the same basis. An owner will be taken to continue in possession with even minimal acts. A dispossessor will need to establish possession akin to that which an owner making full but ordinary use of the property concerned, having regard to its characteristics, could be expected to make. It is not, therefore, a question of weighing up and balancing the 10 extent of the possession of an owner and a person claiming adverse possession. Provided that there are any acts of possession by the owner, then adverse possession cannot run at the relevant time. This is of relevance because there are a number of actions taken by CIE which are said to amount to acts of possession. It will be necessary to assess whether those acts do amount to possession having regard to the low threshold identified in the authorities. If they do, however, those acts will prevent time running during the period at which they occurred. 4.9 On the other hand it is common case that once title is extinguished it cannot be reactivated or reinstated by means of a minimal act of possession. The real question which I need to ask, therefore, is as to whether Mr. Dunne can establish a single continuous twelve year period during the last 30 years in which he was in exclusive possession of the lands in question to such a degree as would be reasonable having regard to the standard of an owner making normal and usual use of lands of the type in question and during which twelve year period no act of possession, however slight, occurred by or on behalf of CIE. If Mr. Dunne can do that, then at the end of that twelve year period CIE's title will have been extinguished and no subsequent act of possession on the part of CIE would be sufficient to reinstate it.” 40. The Plaintiffs also rely on the Supreme Court judgment of Laffoy J in the same case, Dunne v Iarnród Éireann [2016] IESC 47. The Court recorded the High Court quotation from Powell v McFarland before stating: “The trial judge then quoted, and suggested as being to like effect, the passage from the judgment of Lord O'Hagan in Lord Advocate v. Lord Lovat (1880) 5 App Cas 273 at p. 288 quoted by Charleton J. at para. 10 in his judgment. He then summarised the position (at para. 4.5) as follows: It seems to me, therefore, that the nature of the possession which must be established is one which must be objectively viewed by reference to the lands concerned and the type of use which one might reasonably expect a typical owner to put those lands to. In my view, that statement is indisputable.” 41. The Defendant relies on section 18 of the Statute of Limitations 1957 which provides: 11 “18.—(1) No right of action to recover land shall be deemed to accrue unless the land is in the possession (in this section referred to as adverse possession) of some person in whose favour the period of limitation can run. (2) Where— (a) under the foregoing provisions of this Act a right of action to recover land is deemed to accrue on a certain date, and (b) no person is in adverse possession of the land on that date, the right of action shall not be deemed to accrue unless and until adverse possession is taken of the land. (3) Where a right of action to recover land has accrued and thereafter, before the right of action is barred, the land ceases to be in adverse possession, the right of action shall no longer be deemed to have accrued and no fresh right of action shall be deemed to accrue unless and until the land is again taken into adverse possession. (4) For the purposes of this section— (a) possession of any land subject to a rentcharge by a person (other than the person entitled to the rentcharge) who does not pay the rentcharge shall be deemed to be adverse possession of the rentcharge, and (b) receipt of the conventional rent under a lease by a person wrongfully claiming to be entitled to the land in reversion immediately expectant on the determination of the lease shall be deemed to be adverse possession of the land.” 42. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s case is that Vincent Keegan’s claim was extinguished in 1968, four years before Alan Keegan’s Solicitors acknowledged Vincent Keegan’s rights and invited him to apply for a Grant of Administration in the Estate of Thomas Keegan. This appears to be a reference to the Patrick Hogan & Co letter dated 31 May 1972. She argues that any occupation of the Lands by Alan Keegan was by way of a family arrangement and that occupation was permissive rather than adverse. She relies on 12 Murphy v Murphy [1980] IR 183 as authority that the Courts in Ireland have been wary of inferring adverse possession in domestic situations. 43. The Defendant relies on the Supreme Court (Charleton J) decision in Dunne v Iarnród Éireann [2016] IESC 47. at paragraph 14 where he states: “… assessment of possession in not one in which the possession of the paper title owner and the person claiming possession are judged on the same basis. An owner will be taken to continue in possession with even minimal acts.” Discussion 44. Thomas Keegan died in 1956. Immediately thereafter, the occupation and use of the Lands is unclear. Allan Keegan and/or Vincent Keegan and/or other family members may have been growing celery on it in the 1960s. The Lands were mentioned in a 1972 Solicitors letter where Vincent Keegan appears to assert a “distributive share” to the lands which may have been occupied by Allan Keegan. None of the affidavits or the oral evidence provides clear or convincing evidence of who was in occupation of the Lands during this period. None of the witnesses gave detailed evidence of having lived on or close to the lands or having witnessed first hand its use and occupation. 45. However, from 1999 the position is different. It is clear from Mr Tuohy’s evidence, and from the various letting agreements, statements of account and receipts provided by him, that the Lands were rented from 1999 to 2023. It appears, on the balance of probabilities, that one part of the Lands was rented firstly to Kevin Muldoon from 1995 to 1999 and then to Bertie Cummins from 1999 to 2023 when the arrangement ceased due to the dispute the subject of these proceedings. It similarly appears, that the second part of the Lands was rented to Willie Dermody (and subsequently to his estate) from 1999 to 2024. Of course, there are short gaps between the letting agreements in respect of both parts of the Lands. However, the contemporaneous letters indicate that the tenants did not leave the land but rather met Mr Tuohy and simply signed a new agreement each year. Even if the tenant farmers did leave the land briefly, there is no evidence that any person other than Mr Allan Keegan and/or his representatives occupied these lands in the short intermissions. 46. Most importantly, for all of that time, Allan Keegan, and subsequently his estate acted as landlord in these agreements. This demonstrates both factual possession and the requisite intention to possess. There is no evidence that any party, purporting to be the paper title 13 owner contested this entitlement until the Defendant objected to the Application on 24 November 2022. 47. In her affidavit on that date, the Defendant claimed to have been “in occupation of the property for a period of almost 6 years”. I prefer the evidence of Mr Tuohy that the various tenants were in occupation during that period. Mr Tuohy gave first hand evidence of having collected the rents and paid them to Mr Dan Hassett as the personal representative of Allan Keegan throughout this period. That first hand evidence was corroborated by the various contemporaneous letting agreements, receipts, account statements and other documents. 48. Applying the test identified by the High Court in Dunne; the Plaintiffs have established a single continuous twelve year period during the last 30 years in which Allan Keegan and/or his estate was in exclusive possession of the Lands to such a degree as would be reasonable having regard to the standard of an owner making normal and usual use of lands of the type in question and during which twelve year period no act of possession, however slight, occurred by or on behalf of the paper title owners. 49. In particular, I am satisfied on the evidence that Allan Keegan, and subsequently his personal representative had single and conclusive possession of the Lands from 1999 at the latest until the date of the Application on 21 May 2021. The acts of charging and collecting rents constitute a sufficient degree of exclusive physical control given the circumstances; in particular the nature of the land and the manner in which such land is commonly used. 50. I have regard to the express wording of section 18(4)(b). Allan Keegan, and subsequently his personal representative was in receipt of the conventional rent under the letting agreements. By acting as landlord in these letting agreements, Allan Keegan represented that he was entitled to the Lands in reversion immediately expectant on the determination of the leases. Conclusion 51. I hereby grant a declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to be Registered as full owners of all that and those lands contained in Folio GY4841 and described thereon as; “The property shown coloured RED as Plan(s) 4841_1, 4841_2 on the Registry Map, situate in the Townland of Tiranascragh in the Barony of LONGFORD, in the Electoral Division of TIRANASCRAGH.” Gerard Meehan 23 April 2026 14