PIERIS APPUHAMI v BOTEJU

PIERIS APPUHAMI v. BOTEJU.

D. C Colombo, C/2,482.

 Ordinance 5 of 1877, ss. 31, 32-Certificate of title-Effect thereof-Setting aside such certificate-Necessity for entry of name of administrator instead of his intestate-Ordinance No. 14 of 1891, s. 26.

The object of a certificate of title granted under section 31 of Ordinance No. 5 of 1877 is to make it, unless and until it is impeached by an action under section 32 thereof, conclusive evidence of the title of the holder of such certificate to the land referred to therein ; and the certificate is a bar to the assertion by any one of any claim to such land, which arose or accrued prior to the date of the certificate, and which might have been registered ; and it is a bar to the claims of persons as well in as out of possession of the premises.

Any one seeking to set aside such certificate need not resort to a separate action, but that object may be gained by means of a claim in reconvention under section 32 of the Ordinance, in an action already filed against him.

Every administrator should get himself placed on the register kept under Ordinance No. 5 of 1877, as required by section 26 of Ordinance No. 14 of 1891, in place of his intestate, and his failure to do so will, under section 31 of Ordinance No. 5 of 1877, operate as a bar to any claim by him as administrator.

Cassim v. Marikar (1 S. C. R. 185) questioned.

THE facts of the case are set forth in the judgment of his  Lordship the Chief Justice. It was argued in appeal on 28th June, 1895.

Dornhorst, for appellant.

Pereira, for respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

19th July, 1895. BONSER, C. J.

In this case we have to determine the effect of a certificate of title given under Ordinance No. 5 of 1877.

The plaintiff, who is the holder of a certificate of title of the second class to 3-28ths of a certain field, sues the defendant, alleging that he has been ousted therefrom, and prays for a declaration that he is the owner, and that he may be placed in possession of the share, and for damages.

The defendant, by his answer, alleges title in himself. He says that the plaintiff derives title from his father, Johanis Pieris, by inheritance, and that such title was and is a defeasible title, subject to any disposition of the said lands to be made by the duly appointed legal representative of the said Johanis Pieris.

He further alleges that Johanis Pieris died intestate on the 6th April, 1888, and that Misso, who was appointed administrator, sold and on the 16th of June, 1892, conveyed to the defendant 25-28ths

of the said land, being all the interest of the s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document