Mr. Somsagoon Jeerasin vs. Mrs. Benja Jeerasin

The mother of the plaintiff leased the disputed building from a government office, and permitted the defendant and parties to reside in the disputed building. Subsequently, Mrs. Jitra transferred the lease rights to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not want the defendant and parties to reside in the disputed building, and requested them to vacate the building, yet they did not concede to the request.

Ms. Lai Puakdee et. al. vs. Mr. Sompong Puakdee

Mr. Leng had possessory rights over a plot of land. Subsequently, Mr. Leng died and the land was transferred to heirs, namely the first to third plaintiffs, Mrs. Prayong, the mother of the fourth plaintiff, and the defendant for a parcel each. However, the defendant requested to construct a residential home on the land. Thereafter, the defendant claimed that he possessed the disputed land in its entirety for himself until presently, and that the plaintiffs’ legal action was filed more than a year after the death of the estate owner, and therefore the statute of limitations had expired.

Inquiry Official of Bangrak Metropolitan Police Headquarters vs. Mrs. S. Rotjanasuwan, Mr. W. Rotjanasuwan, (Intervenor)

The defendant (wife) entered into a bail agreement with the plaintiff (inquiry official) to bail an alleged offender and had used as security the disputed land in which the name of the intervenor (husband) appeared on the document as the one with possessory right. Thereafter the defendant breached the bail agreement and the land was seized. The intervenor, in his petition, stated that the seized land is not community property of the defendant, but is separate property of the intervenor.

Mrs. Preopran Seenuan   petitioner Administrator, Mrs. Kanchana Singkavat intervenor, Mrs. Kanchana Singkavat petitioner, Mr. Duan administrator 1, Mr.Suriyan administrator 1 petitioner

The first petitioner and the deceased were siblings with the same biological father, and as such were half siblings, even though the deceased was not a lawful child of the father. The Intervenor was the child of Jor, who was the uncle of the deceased, and Jor subsequently died. However, the first petitioner was the fourth nearest blood relative, and nearer in kin than Jor. Therefore, Jor and his descendants have no rights to the estate of the deceased.

Mrs. Somjit Muangngam vs. Mrs. Urai Sungkagoon

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming that the defendant constructed a bamboo fence which encroached on the northern part of the plaintiff’s property. In comparing the map as stated to the map from the plaintiff’s prior legal proceeding, it can be seen that the disputed land referred to in this case was a part of the land under contention in the former legal proceeding. Therefore, the plaintiff’s legal action claiming that the section of the disputed land was a part of the land possessed by the plaintiff for a beneficial purpose was a re-examination of the same issues judged by the court already, and hence a duplicate legal action.