CASIPILLAI v. RAMANATER

CASIPILLAI v. RAMANATER

C. R., Jaffna, 397.

 

Crown land-Right of possessor to a Crown grant-Prescription- Improved value-Ordinance No. 12 of 1840, s. 8.

Possession, as defined in clause 3 of Ordinance No. 22 of 1871, of Crown land for fifteen years prior to alienation thereof by the Crown cannot avail as a plea in bar to a claim to such land by a private individual who has purchased it from the Crown.

Semble, per Bonser, C.J.-That the Crown cannot by conveying away land in the possession of a private individual deprive the possessor of the benefit of section 8 of Ordinance No. 12 of 1840, under which a possessor of Crown land, in certain circumstances, is entitled to a grant of such land from the Crown on payment of half its improved value, and cannot be ejected from such land except on payment to him of such share of the improved value.

Quaere-Whether a purchaser from the Crown does not get an unimpeachable title.

THE facts of the case fully appear in the judgment.

Dornhorst, for appellant.

Wendt and Sampayo, for respondent.

18th March, 1896. Bonser, C.J.-

This is an unfortunate litigation about a very small piece of land, some thirty-six perches in extent. It is admitted that the defendants have been in possession of it since 1879, that it was within a clearly marked boundary, and was enjoyed by the defendants as part of their holding. In 1879 the first defendant purchased a piece of land from the Crown, and it was duly conveyed to him by the Crown. The plan on the conveyance to the defendant is the usual sort of thing which is affixed to a Crown grant, but which for any practical purposes might be dispensed with. It is a mere geometrical figure drawn on a blank sheet of paper. The defendants took possession of what they conceived to be the land which was conveyed by the grant, and on the eastern boundary they erected a dam, they cultivated the land, asweddumized it, and brought it into cultivation as paddy land. No one disputed their title till 1893. They thus enjoyed the land for a period which, against any body but the Crown, would be sufficient to establish their title even if they had no previous title. In 1893 the Crown put up for sale the tract of land on the eastern boundary of the defendant's land.

The plaintiff became the purchaser of this land, and it was duly conveyed to him by a conveyance on which was drawn a plan. The plan was not made an integral part of the conveyance, but it was referred to incidentally in the body of the deed. The land is described as "containing eleven acres and thirty-six perches "according to the annexed survey and description thereof...... The plaintiff, when he bought this land, was aware of the possession by the defendant of the piece of land in dispute which was a strip on the eastern boundary of the defendant's land and therefore on the western boundary of the land bought by plaintiff. He admits that he was aware of the possession by the defendants and of the existence of the boundary dam. The land was jungle land, and it was sold by the Crown as uncultivated land; and I do not for a moment believe that, when the plaintiff purchased this land at the Government sale, he intended to purchase with the uncultivated land this strip of land which he knew to be cultivated and in the possession of the defendants. However, after the conveyance he called in a surveyor, who told him that he was entitled under that conveyance to this disputed piece, and he therefore raised this claim. The defendants being in possession, the proof of title rests with the plaintiff, and he must prove, beyond doubt, that this strip of land which he claims was included in the Crown grant. Surveyors were called by the plaintiff, who testified that by comparison of plans they were of opinion that this strip was included in the plan annexed to the plaintiff's grant. But this involves, what seems to be, a great difficulty. On the western b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document