Two Sandys men are disputing ownership of a piece of land dividing their two properties in Supreme Court.

Neighbours Ronald Wilson and Roderic Pearman of Cooks Hill Road have been squabbling over the land since the 1980s, culminating in a writ being filed by Mr. Pearman against Mr. Wilson in 1999.

After a trial last week and closing submissions yesterday, Puisne Judge Norma Wade-Miller retired to consider her judgement, saying she would notify the parties involved when she had reached a decision.

While Mr. Wilson is claiming adverse possession of the property ? possession of the land after maintaining it for 20 years or more ? Mr. Pearman is trying to prove ownership by inheritance.

In court on Friday Mr. Wilson's lawyer, Richard Horseman argued that his client produced "acts of ownership" since the 1980s and currently uses the property as his backyard.

While Mr. Pearman's lawyer, Delroy Duncan argued that the land being disputed has always been in his client's family and has been used on and off since the 1920s.

The land in question had been sold to Mr. Pearman by Iris Davis, who had inherited the land from her cousin, Dulci Simmons when she died in 1972.

From 1956 until her death in 1972 Ms Simmons had apparently been the sole owner of the property in question, which she worked as a quarry, grew vegetables and cleaned on a regular basis.

In her affidavit Ms Davis said that over the years she had asked Mr. Wilson and his children numerous times to leave the property and had even posted private property signs and built a wall in an effort to keep them off.

Mr. Duncan said after Mr. Wilson destroyed this wall, Ms Davis went to court and he was issued with a court order which prohibited him from entering the property for a year.

He said when Ms Davis inherited the property, she was made to understand that she owned all of it up to the boundary of Mr. Wilson's property, which had originally belonged to Eugene Charles Hansley ? who had allegedly bought it from John Benjamin Zuill.

Mr. Hansley had since died, but his declaration was submitted in court as evidence by Mr. Horseman.

A point that Mr. Duncan argued on Friday as the writ had been filed in July 1999 and Mr. Hansley's declaration had been made in November that year in "contemplation of ongoing proceedings".

Mr. Horseman argues that when Mr. Wilson moved to the property in the 1980s, the disputed property remained unused by Ms Davis and then by Mr. Pearman. He said Mr. Wilson at first parked his car there, as the previous tenants had, and then utilised it into a garden.

Mr. Wilson had testified that the only way to get access to the disputed property is by going through his property, as the boundary on Mr. Pearman's side is overgrown and is rather steep leading down to his property.

Mr. Horseman said the previous owner, Mr. Hansley used to keep his cows on the property and once warned Ms Simmons not to trespass on the property, especially once when Mr. Hansley apparently caught her trying to build on it.

Also in dispute was a shack Ms Simmons had built on the property in the 1930s, but Mr. Wilson's lawyer claims the shack was built on Mr. Pearman's current property, while Mr. Pearman claims the shack had been built on the land in question and therefore shows possession.

Mr. Duncan said Ms Davis' affidavit speaks of Ms Simmons talking about wanting to build on the land, but could not because it was too sandy and the fact that she wanted to build was unequivocal proof that the land belonged to her.

He also argued that Ms Davis told Mr. Wilson numerous times not to park his car on the property and this showed intention because the land belonged to her.

Mr. Duncan told the court about an incident in which Mr. Wilson had "dumped" his garbage on the property in question ? something he claimed, no owner would do and was done purely to irritate Ms Davis ? whom he says did own the property.