No. It records the family’s contention that Parcel A never passed into BP’s title, but no court or public body has found for the family on title (Where things stand).

It is shorthand for the distinction the research is testing between possession and title; it does not overwrite the legal record. Each record is read for what it actually decided or recorded: the Court of Appeal, the 1974 letters and the first registration.

It decided BP’s possession claim against the family, and HM Land Registry relied on it in 2026. The site treats the historic conveyance extent of Parcel A as a separate documentary question (Court of Appeal; what the judgments omit; HMLR 2026).

If the two parcels had different roots of title, each later instrument has to be checked for whether it actually carried Parcel A, rather than assuming that a “whole farm” description did (title test).

The family’s primary case is title under the 1877 arrangement taking effect in 1928. Separately, its alternative limitation case is that twelve years from 1928 would have matured by 1940 if the relevant statutory conditions were met. In the later possession litigation, the courts held that time had not run in the way argued, relying on the 1962 action and the 1974 letters’ effect on permission. Those later findings must be read in their exact pleadings/property scope; “house and garden” identifies the occupied centre, not the full physical extent of Parcel A (High Court; Court of Appeal).

The family is examining alteration of the register for mistake and indemnity under the Land Registration Act 2002 (legal routes). HM Land Registry decided in May 2026 that the title was registered correctly, and every route faces the binding 1987 judgment (HMLR 2026).

The 1955 order used “whole farm” wording. On the family’s established account, enforcement on 4 July 1955 took Parcel B and also seized the Parcel-A north forest and south-east green, while Mary remained in the occupied farmhouse/buildings/garden group. The 1962 order concerned that remaining house-and-garden group; it does not define the full extent of Parcel A. The Court of Appeal relied on the 1962 action in its limitation analysis, but the later “house and garden” descriptions must not be treated as meaning that all of Parcel A remained with Mary (1955; 1962; Court of Appeal).

The Court of Appeal held that BP’s 1974 letters made Mary Williams’s possession permissive whether or not she accepted them. The family’s reading is that she refused them as owner; the wording itself is evidence still requiring interpretation (1974 letters; what the judgments omit).