complained about duress at the relevant time, or soon thereafter. It may, of course, be possible to maintain that there were no proper authorities functioning at the time of the transfer to make complaints. A civil dispute of this nature should be heard and decided without the pre-requisite of a complaint in the nature of a criminal action. Section 88 of the Trusts Ordinance states: “Where property is transferred in pursuance of a contract which is liable to rescission or induced by fraud or mistake, the transferee must, on receiving notice to that effect, hold the property for the benefit of the transferor, subject to repayment by the latter of the consideration actually paid, and subject to any compensation or other relief to which the transferee may be by law entitled.” The forced transfer of a property is a contract that is “liable to rescission.” And, therefore, Section 88 of the Trust Ordinance is applicable, and the transferee should hold the property in trust for the transferor. There may, however, be instances where the transferee was not an actual participant in the forced transfer; i.e., a third party might have forced the transfer to be executed in the name of the transferee. Even in such circumstances section 88 would be applicable. Further, the forced transfer may have resulted from extortion if the transfer was forced on the transferor under threat to his life or injury to his body. If this was the case, it is also possible to sue the transferee in a criminal suit. The right to the property, however, would have to be resolved in a civil suit. In cases where the real value of the land was not paid, the rule of laesio enormis can be applied and the transaction could be set aside. In our view, the law as it stands today is adequate but the mechanism to enforce its provisions (civil litigation in a District Court) may be inadequate, if large numbers of issues concerning forced transfers arise for resolution. If it is found that a forced transfer occurred due to pressure from an armed or political group, then our recommendation is that the assistance of an independent foreign agency be sought to resolve the dispute amicably. 12) Non-existent boundaries of property or encroachment of the lands Privately owned properties in the North and East were secured by live fences and walls, which served as the boundary of the property. These may have been damaged or destroyed in the conflict areas. Paddy fields and other agricultural farms were also neglected during this period of war and the boundaries of these may also no longer be in existence. The problem is aggravated when persons who remained on the land or the persons who have returned to their lands, encroach onto a neighbour’s land and demarcate a new boundary line. The applicable laws are: Common law; Primary Courts Procedure Act; Definition of Boundaries Act No.22 of 1955; and Registration of Title Act. Where a dispute in the determination of a boundaries causes (or is likely to cause) a breach of the peace, the provisions of Part VII of the Primary Courts Procedure Act could be invoked by either the Police or the parties to the dispute. Section 66(1) of the Act, refers to a dispute affecting land, which includes “any disputes as to the right to the possession of any land or part of a land and the buildings thereon or the boundaries thereof or...” 22