The defendant appealed.

District 1 Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court judged that “The four plaintiffs filed a legal action requesting the court order the defendant to divide the inherited land to the four plaintiffs for one part of the land each, altogether four out of five parts, calculated at a price of 240,000 baht.

Even though the plaintiffs’ legal action was a class action, the plaintiffs’ capital must be calculated separately because the plaintiffs expressed their rights individually. Because the estimate provided by the plaintiffs for the price of four parts of the land is 240,000 baht, the price for each individual piece of land is not more than 200,000 baht. The property price or amount of capital disputed between the defendant and the four plaintiffs must also be separated. Because the property price or the amount of capital disputed between the defendant and the four plaintiffs is calculated at not more than 200,000 baht per person, the defendant is prohibited from appealing to the Supreme Court on the relevant issues of the case, according to the Civil Procedure Code, section 248, paragraph 1.

The defendant claimed in his appeal that he had possessory rights over the disputed land pursuant to Thai land law because he and Mr. Leng Puakdee both possessed the land for a beneficial purpose from the beginning, and thereafter Mr. Leng gave the part of the disputed land which was his to the defendant, and that the defendant was therefore entitled to possessed the disputed land for himself.

Even though it is acknowledged that the defendant possessed the disputed land in the place of other heirs, the defendant indicated a change in his intentions from claiming possession of the land in place of the plaintiffs to possessing the land in its entirety for himself. Therefore, the defendant has contested the judgment, based on the discretion, of District 1 Appellate Court according to the court’s review of the evidence.

The court had decided that Mr. Leng lawfully possessed the entire plot of the disputed land. He had not transferred the right of possession to any persons prior to his death. When Mr. Leng died, the disputed land was transferred to his heirs, namely the first to the third plaintiffs, Mrs. Prayong Puakdee, with the fourth plaintiff as heir in the line of descent, and the defendant. The defendant’s appeal on this issue is based on the relevant issues of the case, which must be prohibited accorded to the said provisions.

The defendant’s appeal that the statute of limitations had expired on the plaintiffs’ legal action because the plaintiffs filed the action more than a year after Mr. Leng’s death contests the judgment of District 1 Appellate Court which judged that the defendant had not possessed the disputed land for a period of one year after the death of Mr. Leng. Therefore, the statute of limitations to the plaintiff’s action had not expired according to the Civil and Commercial Code, section 1754, paragraph 1.

The defendant contested the judgment of District 1 Appellate Court, based on the discretion of the court and according to the court’s review of the evidence, on relevant issues of the case. The defendant’s appeal is likewise based on relevant issues of the case. The defendant’s appeal on this issue is prohibited according to the provisions.  The trial court’s order to review the defendant’s appeal is unlawful, and the Supreme Court will not review for judgment.”

The defendant’s appeal is dismissed.