BANDA et al. v. BANDA.

D. C., Kandy, 11,992.

Ordinance No. 22 of 1871, s. 3-" Possession for ten years previous to the bringing of the action "-Proof of appointment of assignee in insolvency.

Per Moncreiff, J.-The natural meaning of section 3 of Ordinance No. 22 of 1871 is not, in my opinion, that the ten years' possession must endure until the bringing of the action. The words-" the bringing of the action "-were introduced simply to prevent any dispute as to the stage in the action before which the ten years' possession must be complete. Those words do not confine the ten years to the period next before the bringing of the action.

Per Browne ,A.J.-I agree with my brother's views, and feel bound by the decision in Nakar v. Sinnatty (Ram. 1860, p. 75).

Silva v. Siman (4 N. L. R. 144), disapproved.

The method of proving the appointment of an assignee in insolvency explained.

ACTION for ejectment, and that plaintiffs should be placed in possession of the lands unlawfully held by defendant.

Plaintiff alleged title to an undivided half share in several lands by. right of purchase from one Kumarihamy upon deed dated 19th July, 1897. The actio