Chhokar v Chhokar [1984] FLR 313 is an English land law case concerning constructive trusts law and widening the natural meaning of "actual occupation" (which protects the occupier by virtue of the Land Registration Act 2002, Schedule 3, being an overriding interest).

The facts of the case showed an intention to do a woman out of her (and her children's) occupational interest in a matrimonial home, as the new co-owner buying his share from the husband knew of her situation from the outset and wished to resell the property.

The question for the court was whether Mrs. Chhokar could be said to be in 'actual occupation' even though she was not physically present in the house at the time of the transfer (sale).

Ewbank J ordered that Mr. Parmar held the property on trust for himself and Mrs. Chhokar in equal shares; that it be sold in 9 months; and until then, she must pay him a rent of £8 a week.

The Court of Appeal, sitting as a panel of two judges, held the purpose of the trust was to give Mrs Chhokar and her children a home.

Cumming-Bruce LJ remarked that for the question about whether an order for sale should be made, bankruptcy case law was analogous and relevant.

So we have to decide, having regard to all the circumstances, including the fact that there are young children and that the debtor was made bankrupt on his own petition, whose voice, that of the trustee seeking to realize the debtor’s share for the benefit of his creditors or that of the wife seeking to preserve a home for herself and the children, ought in equity to prevail.

The voice of the wife sings the following song: ‘I became tenant in common in equity with a 50% interest in this property, the matrimonial home, upon its acquisition.

But when the true facts emerged, there is nothing in her conduct which points to any reason at all for interfering with her continued enjoyment of her equitable rights, including the right to occupy the house, the matrimonial home, and including, if this unsatisfactory husband is willing to continue to live with her there, although he has lost the legal estate, and if she is prepared to put up with him being there, her enjoyment of the matrimonial home together with her husband.

‘Everything that [Mr Parmar] did from first to last in connection with the transaction is stamped with immoral stigma.’He held the judge at first instance was wrong to make an order for sale.