HENDRICK APPU v. SIRIWARDANE.

HENDRICK APPU v. SIRIWARDANE.

D. C., Galle, 6,211.

Sale of immovable property by administrator-Want of special authority from Court to sell-Improper conditions of sale-Liability of administrator to convey property sold-Action by purchaser for conveyance-Jurisdiction of Court to entertain suit-Duty of purchaser.

An order of court to sell the immovable property of a deceased person in order to pay his debts is not a proper order to make, in accordance with the letters of administration.

What the law requires is that there should be before the- judge materials to show that a sale i,s necessary, and that the judge upon those materials should give leave to sell a certain specified, portion of the immovable property as may be in his opinion sufficient for the purpose.

In the case of a sale authorized by Court, it is an improper contract in the conditions of the sale to make the purchase money payable to the anctioneer.

Nor is it legal, when the purchase money has not reached the hands of the administratrix, to order her to convey the land to the purchaser.

Where an administratrix, appointed by the. District Court of Colombo, obtained the general leave of that Court to sell so much of the immovable property of the estate as would be necessary to pay off its debts, and entrusted the sale of a property situate in the District of Galle to an auctioneer who did not pay to her all the proceeds realized, and where the purchaser raised an action in the District Court of Galle against the administratrix and the auctioneer, praying for a conveyance of the property to her,-

Held, that all questions arising out of the execution of the order of sale by the District Court of Colombo should be referred to and decided by that Court, and not by the District Court of Galle.

The proper course was for the purchaser to present a petition by way of summary procedure in the administration suit pending before the District Court of Colombo, and pray for adjudication on the facts stated.

Held also, that before a person purchases immovable property from an administrator, he should sec that the vendor had special authority from the Court, and that all formalities connected with the sale are properly carried out.

IN this action plaintiff alleged that the first defendant, as administratrix of the estate of one Amerasinhe Mudaliyar, authorized the second defendant to sell by auction the land called Meddadowawatta belonging to the deceased; that at the auction held the land was knocked down to the plaintiff for Rs. 450: that in terms of the conditions of sale signed by the plaintiff and the first and second defendants, the plaintiff paid to them Rs. 450 and presented a deed of conveyance for their signature, but defendants refused to sign the same. He prayed that the defendants be compelled to sign and deliver the said deed in his favour. The defendants filed separate answers. It appeared that the first defendant refused to sign the deed because the second

defendant did not pay to her a portion of the price received , by him from the plaintiff.

It appeared that the administratrix was appointed as such by the District Court of Colombo, and had leave from it to sell so much of the immovable property of the estate as was necessary to pay off its debts; and that the land sold for this purpose was situate in the District of Galle.

The District Judge (Mr. J. D. Mason) held that, as the second defendant, had admitted receipt of the price of the land sold, it was the duty of the first defendant to execute the deed of transfer. He decreed that she should sign and perfect it, and pay to plaintiff and second defendant their costs.

The first defendant appealed.

Van Langenberg, for appellant, opened the facts of the case. [Bonser, C.J.-In a similar case specific performance was refused by this Court.] Yes, in Pathumma v. Krause (5 N. L. R. 162). [Bonser, C.J.-How can the administratrix be compelled t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document