37
This passage was one of the two extracts from Command paper 403 quoted in Appendix 10 to the Committee Report, 1953, and was considered by the Committee to be still relevant (Chap II para 39) See also the Explanation in Appendix 22 to that Report at pp 313-315
101 Wilson's notes. This was the type of land which gave rise to one of the two reported cases dealing with land in the New Territories viz. TANG CHOY HONG vs TANG SHING MO & OTHERS (1949) 33 HKLR 58, See also the decision dated 30th January 1950 of the land officer in Ping Shan Land Case No. 233/75B/48, LEUNG MUN TONG & OTHERS vs WONG KAM KWAI (unreported) - “It is an almost universal custom throughout the New Territories that land which is reserved for ancestor worship, commonly known as "Ching Sheung" land, may not be sold "
(On appeal - Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1950 (also unreported) the order only was varied by Williams Ag CJ)
The English Rule against Perpetuities probably does not apply to gifts of ancestral land in the New Territories - vide intra under “Succession” and note 137
Cap 15310 vide Committee Report, 1953, Chap III para. 39 and Appendix 10 as to money loan associations see below
106 vide s. 19, New Territories Ordinance (Cap. 97)
107 Committee Report 1953, para. 1.3
10 Mr PC Woo, whose views on Chinese custom were highly valued by the 1948 Committee has informed me in a private communication that these terms are not proper legal ones but are slang used by villagers
op cit para 19
Report, DCNT, 1950-52, para 37
1 (1950) 34 HKLR 297 at pp. 304-306
112 Tsun po Land Court Case No. 4 of 1950 (unreported)
per Mr B D Wilson in Ping Shan Case No. 45 of 1954, TSING KAN & OTHERS vs LAI CHEUNG (unreported) the appeal against this decision Civil Appeal No 17 of 1954, LAI CHEUNG vs THE KWOK YUEN (unreported) - was dismissed by Reynolds J on grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction, see also almost identical wording by same land officer in Ping Shan Land Case No 5 of 1953, TANG CHING LOK TSO vs TO HOP CHOI (unreported), the appeal in this case - Civil Appeal No 15 of 1954 (unreported) was similarly dismissed by Reynolds J