Parcel A: the full house/quarrying estate, not just the farmhouse or house-and-garden group. It included the farmhouse/buildings, barn, stable and yard west of the house, garden, forest north, and south-east land later registered as VG41. Parcel B: the separate eastern agricultural fields. The distinction is central because later “whole farm” wording blurred two legally distinct interests.

The family’s established title case is that the 1877 Bute–Thomas arrangement placed the full house/quarrying parcel on the Thomas/Williams side, with quarrying rights/arrangements continuing until 1928. The family relies on Mary Williams’s statement and the end of quarrying/rent to Thomas in 1928 as the point when that arrangement took effect in the family’s freehold. This account includes the north forest and south-east green ground, not only the occupied house and garden. Parcel B was the eastern fields retained by Bute and later dealt with through WGR’s agricultural tenancy.

The 1877 arrangement is described in the family evidence as linking the house/quarrying estate to the Thomas side while quarrying continued. In 1928 the quarrying had ended and the last rent to Alfred Thomas was paid. The family’s case is that the arrangement then took effect and the full Parcel A became Williams family freehold, including the forest north and south-east ground later registered as VG41.

Daniel and Alfred Thomas. The Daniel Thomas and Alfred Thomas record collects the surviving evidence concerning the Thomas transaction; the exact land and legal effect are tested against the 1877 agreement and later title records.

The family’s established chronology identifies 1928 as the point when quarry machinery had been removed and a final payment of about £4 was made to Alfred Thomas. The family’s title case is that this is when the 1877 arrangement took effect and the full Parcel A passed into the Williams family’s freehold. The alternative limitation case is that twelve years from the 1928 change would have matured by 1940 if the applicable legal conditions were met. The legal title basis and the alternative limitation calculation must be kept distinct.

The 1939 WGR–John Williams agreement and plan are already obtained and analysed: the plan depicts Parcel B (the eastern agricultural fields) only, not Parcel A. That finding is closed and should not be re-opened as an acquisition question. The separate downstream task is to inspect the 1938 conveyance’s operative scope and compare later 1961, 1969, 1971, 1975 and 1982–83 instruments/plans to identify how the north forest and south-east green entered later descriptions and titles.

The 1916 tenancy helps track how “whole farm” language entered later descriptions. That terminology must be read against the established Parcel-A / Parcel-B distinction: it did not itself merge the titles or confer a right to Parcel A. The current work compares later title plans to trace how the Parcel-A north forest and south-east green were dealt with after 1955.

Occupation is evidence relevant to possession, title, knowledge and limitation, but it is not a substitute for examining the 1877/1928 title case and succession. The family’s alternative limitation position is that twelve years from 1928 would have matured by 1940 if the statutory requirements were satisfied. The 1949 attempt to make Mary’s occupancy permissive is said to have failed; the 1955 “whole farm” wording then blurred the parcel division and made occupation appear permissive from a later date. Both the underlying-title route and the alternative limitation route must be stated distinctly.