THE KING v. SENEVIRATNE.

THE KING v. SENEVIRATNE.

D. C., Matara, 9,769.

Notary Public-Original and duplicate of deeds-Neglect to state in the attestation clause the erasures, &c, made in the duplicate of the deed- Ordinance No. 21 of 1900, s. 3 (22).

It being provided in sub-section 22 of section 3 of Ordinance No. 21 of 1900 that it is the duty of a notary to. state " definitely the erasures, alterations, or interpolations which have been made in such deed, "-

Held, that the term " such deed" applies to not only the original but also the duplicate, and that the notary is responsible for any omission in the duplicate of the formalities required by sub-section 22, just as he would be for a similar omission in the original.

THE indictment charged the accused as follows: '' That on or about 5th March, 1901, at Matara, you, being a notary practising at Matara, did neglect to state definitely in the attestation of deed No. 1,393 attested by you, the erasures, alterations, and interpolations which had been made in that deed, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 3 of Ordinance No. 21 of 1900. "

It appeared at the trial that the " original " deed given to the grantee bore no erasures, but the " duplicate " sent by the accused to the office of the Registrar of Lands contained certain erasures and alterations, such, for instance, as dakunata erased and basnairata inserted. These alterations were simply initialled. They were not stated in the attestation clause of either the original or the duplicate. It was the duty of the notary, under sub-section 22, to state " definitely the erasures, alterations, or interpolations which have been made in such deed. "

The District Judge (Mr. W. E. Thorpe) acquitted the accused, on the ground that the term " deed " in sub-section 22 did not include the duplicate, and errors in the duplicate were not contemplated by that section of the Ordinance.

The Attorney-General appealed.

Ramanathan, S.-G., for appellant.-The Ordinance clearly contemplates " copies " or" parts " of a deed. Sub-section 30 of section 26 of the principal Ordinance No. 2 of 1877, as amended by Ordinance No. 21 of 1900, refers to the " copy " of the deed in the notary's protocol and to its " original ". Sub-section 23 refers to "deed or instrument," and the form of attestation therein given refers to " the original of this instrument " and the " duplicate." Another term for the duplicate is " counterpart. " The proviso at

p. 38 of Vol. Ill of the Revised Edition of 1900 runs as follows: " The stamp duty here by chargeable on such instrument shall be chargeable on the duplicate or counterpart thereof instead of on the original instrument." And sub-section 13 speaks of any duplicate or other part of the deed. In sub-section 30 occurs the expression " original deed or instrument, " and in sub-section 31 " the duplicate deed." And in the table of fees set forth in the schedule B to the principal Ordinance No. 2 of 1877 we have the expression " attesting in duplicate any deed or instrument." It is therefore clear that the term " deed " applies to both the original and duplicate, which are parts or copies of the one deed of the grantor. Under sub-section 21 it is the notary's duty to attest every deed, and under sub-section 22 "to state in such attestation definitely the erasures, alterations, or interpolations which have been made in such deed." Sub-section 23 contains the form of attestation with the new certificate introduced by Ordinance

No. 21 of 1900: " I further certify and attest that in line the word was erased, and in line the word was altered to' the word - , and in lines the word was interpolated, before the foregoing instrument was read," &c. If erasures exist in the duplicate deed, the attestation clause of that instrument at least should certify as to those erasures.

Bawa, for respondent, referred to sub-sections 18 and 22, and contended that where the Legisl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document