Actual occupation: occupier who fails to disclose her interest on inquiry (LRA 2002 Sch 3 para 2(b))

Imran's registered purchase for value postpones prior interests unless their priority is protected (s.29 LRA 2002), for example as an overriding interest within Schedule 3. Rosa's beneficial interest was not overreached, because the money was paid to Dev alone. Her occupation would ordinarily make her interest overriding under Sch 3 para 2. However, para 2(b) excepts "an interest of a person of whom inquiry was made before the disposition and who failed to disclose the right when he could reasonably have been expected to do so". Imran's solicitor asked Rosa directly before the disposition whether she claimed an interest, and she, an adult who understood the question, denied having one. She could reasonably have been expected to disclose it. Her interest therefore falls outside para 2, is not otherwise protected, and is postponed to Imran's registered title.

Why A is wrong: Actual occupation is not enough where the para 2(b) exception applies because she denied her interest when asked.

Why B is wrong: Non-overreaching explains why she needs another route, but it does not make her interest bind Imran once para 2 is excluded.

Why C is wrong: The doctrine of constructive notice does not govern priority in registered land; ss.29-30 and Sch 3 do.

Why E is wrong: A beneficiary's interest can override through actual occupation without any restriction; it fails here only because of para 2(b).