Neighbours at warfare over who owns stream dividing their gardens: Artisan potter locked in four-year battle with duck-loving painter who laid declare to 4ft-wide brook by erecting new fence

An artisan potter has been locked in a four-year battle with a duck-loving painter who sparked a bitter boundary dispute over a narrow stream dividing their gardens.

David Wright has always believed that a 4ft-wide brook that his children used to paddle in is part of his garden in the charming village of Thrussington, Leicestershire.

But his peaceful life creating ceramics in his garden studio exploded into chaos in 2020 when new neighbour Dee Narga, 56, moved in behind him and laid claim to the babbling brook that runs between the two properties.

Painter Ms Narga, who paid £265,000 for the former pig farm with planning permission to convert it into a large house, said she bought ‘Brook Barn’ under the assumption that the stream was within the boundary of her garden. 

Determined to take ownership of the brook, Ms Naga tore down an existing fence on her side of the water and ‘secured Brook Barn physically’ by erecting a new boundary along the opposite bank. 

Mr Wright and his curtain maker wife Laura say this land forms part of their garden and the garden of their physiotherapist neighbour Amanda Clapham and husband Tony.

The neighbours soon became embroiled in ‘heated discussions’, leading to a ‘bitter’ court dispute between Ms Narga on one side and the Wrights and the Claphams on the other. 

Ms Narga, an NHS administrator and painter who shares pictures of her two ducks ‘Larry’ and ‘Wanda’ on social media, has been ruled owner of the stream in two court clashes so far. 

However, a judge found her neighbours had established ‘squatters’ rights’ over the brook and the unclaimed land immediately north and south of it years before the painter arrived.

The judge found that, because the two couples had not registered their adverse possession of the land and their use of it was not ‘obvious,’ their claims to it were superseded by Ms Narga’s once her property was registered.

The potter, his wife and their neighbours are now asking London’s Court of Appeal to overturn those orders and give them the bottom of their gardens back, in a case lawyers say is of ‘great significance’ legally.

Thrussington is a small village which originated as a Viking settlement on the western side of the River Wreake, between Leicester and Melton Mowbray.

It is mentioned in the Domesday Book of 1086, and the name means ‘Thursten’s town or settlement’.

The village has won local fame for its annual ‘Thrussington in Bloom’ events, as well as its traditional skittles competitions on the village green.

The disputed brook rises near the ancient mediaeval ruins of Thrussington Grange monastery and passes between the backs of the neighbours’ gardens before emptying into the River Wreake.

But the neighbours’ bucolic peace in their village of 500 residents has been shattered by their boundary war, which has been raging now for four years.

The Court of Appeal heard that until Ms Narga bought Brook Barn in 2020 the Wrights and the Claphams had treated the brook and both its banks as part of their gardens ‘for decades,’ having moved in respectively in 1984 and 1996.

Mr Wright, who spends his days creating Japanese-style ceramics in his studio in the garden, gave evidence during the first clash at Leicester County Court last year that he and his wife’s children played regularly in the brook.

Before Ms Narga bought it, Brook Barn had been offices and before that a piggery, and the two couples told the court they had always thought their gardens ended on its north side, where a steep bank rises up to Brook Barn.

The Claphams had maintained a patch to the north of the steam as a wildlife garden, with havens ‘for hibernating hedgehogs, toads and invertebrates’.

But when Ms Narga bought the property in 2020, she hired contractors to start clearing vegetation on both sides of the brook and, after sending letters to her neighbours claiming the land, she began erecting a fence on the south side to cut off the two couples’ access to the stream.

That resulted in a court injunction halting work on the fence until the ownership dispute could be settled in court.

At the county court trial, Mrs Wright – who Judge Richard Hedley called a ‘knowledgeable and enthusiastic gardener’ – said she had created a boundary around the land on the north bank in addition to the pre-existing fence when she planted a holly hedge and ‘pyracantha and yew which grew thick and spiky, preventing the land from being accessed from Brook Barn’.

‘It achieved the intention of making the north bank inaccessible to anyone else until Ms Narga and her contractors used tools to gain access in 2020,’ she added.

Ms Narga is arguing that, under the Land Registration Act 2002, her purchase of Brook Barn ‘reset’ the boundary to that shown on her Land Registry map, wiping out her neighbours’ rights to the land, despite the fact they had satisfied the requirements to gain title to it before 2003 by adverse possession, also known as ‘squatters’ rights.’

She was able to lay claim to the land under the 2002 Act because it had not been maintained sufficiently so that it was ‘obvious’ on a ‘reasonably careful’ inspection that it was occupied, her lawyers say.

‘In 2020, Mrs Narga purchased a property known as Brook Barn…she believed that it included a brook,’ said her barrister Jonathan Gale.

‘She inspected the property several times prior to purchase and satisfied herself that it included the eponymous brook.

‘She made a reasonably careful inspection and saw no obvious sign of occupation by any third party.’

Judge Hedley, whilst finding the two couples had satisfied the legal requirements for adverse possession of the land many years ago, went on to rule that it was not obvious at the time Ms Narga bought it that the land was being used as part of someone else’s garden.

In those circumstances, the purchase reset the boundary, with the dividing line being south of the brook, cutting off access for the Wrights and the Claphams.

He said: ‘The Wrights and Claphams believed that they owned the respective strips of land on the north bank. This was an entirely reasonable belief on the part of them all.

‘I have no doubt that the lower area below the fence was an exciting place for children to play. I have no hesitation in accepting the evidence relating to children playing.

‘Both the Wrights and the Claphams had acquired title by adverse possession to the north bank up to the fence prior to the first registration of the title of Brook Barn..(they) were in actual occupation of the north bank.

‘However…by the time that Ms Narga inspected Brook Barn prior to her purchase, the fence had deteriorated in places,’ the judge said, adding that the fence was ‘dilapidated’ to such a degree that the estate agent ‘did not notice a fence on the north bank.’

That fact, combined with ‘overgrown’ vegetation to the north, meant that it was not ‘obvious’ that the land had been enclosed as part of someone else’s garden at the time of the sale.

‘I therefore find that the occupation by the claimants of the north bank was not ‘obvious’…on a reasonably careful inspection of the land,’ he said.

‘The intention to possess must be made plain.’

He said the amount of land in dispute was ‘comparatively modest,’ but that a ‘great deal of upset has been caused by this dispute and a great deal of energy, time and money has been expended upon it.’

‘I have no doubt that emotions have run high on both sides and that there is bitterness and mistrust which has arisen.’

Challenging Judge Hedley’s ruling at the Court of Appeal, Mr Morris, for the Wrights and Claphams, argued that the judge and another judge who later upheld the decision, had misapplied the law.

He said the decision was of ‘great significance,’ because, even though the Wrights and Claphams had shown adverse possession, the boundary to the land had been ‘re-set’ to its previous position when registered to Ms Narga because their occupation was no longer obvious.

‘Although the appellants were in actual occupation of the disputed land, the judge found that their occupation would not have been obvious on a reasonably careful inspection of the land, so that the appellants’ interest did not override the disposition of Brook Barn to the respondent,’ he continued.

‘On the facts of this case, the judge’s conclusion is surprising.

‘They had for decades used the disputed land as part of their gardens, cultivating and maintaining it. The effect of the judge’s decision is that Ms Narga, who arrived on the scene only in mid-2020, is now entitled to land long in the rightful possession of the appellants.

‘The decision of the judge will have important ramifications wherever there is an undetermined boundary.’

But contesting the appeal, Mr Gale, for Ms Narga, told the judges: ‘An ex-squatter cannot rely on historic adverse possession to override the title of a registered owner.

‘Purchasers of land need only consider interests which are apparent from the register or from reasonable careful inspection.

‘The Wrights and the Claphams have made a concerted attempt to deprive Ms Narga of the brook.

‘Mr Narga, who inspected the land, satisfied herself that it included the brook, and paid for it, is worthier of protection than squatters who not only expropriated the land, but then failed to protect it.’

‘Registered owners ought to be left in peace. This appeal should be dismissed.’

Lord Justice Peter Jackson, Lord Justice Newey and Lord Justice Nugee have now reserved their decision on the case, to be given at a later date .