PERERA v. DAVID APPU.

PERERA v. DAVID APPU.

D. C., Kurunegala, 1,947.

Purchase of land-Conveyance to minors by the seller at the request of their father-Delivery of the deed to the fathers-Lease of the land by. the father to a third party-Subsequent sale to plaintiff of part of the land by one of the vendees after arriving at majority-Validity of the minor's title as against their father's right to lease.

At the request of A, the father of B and C, minors, D conveyed a land to B and C and delivered the deed to A. He leased the land to E for a number of years. B. arriving at majority, sold his share of the land to F. In an action brought by P against E for ejectment,-

Held, that as A, the father of B, had no authority from B or the Court to buy the land, the deed in his favour conveyed no title to him but operated as a conveyance to A himself, and that therefore A's lease to E was good.

THIS was an action for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff for an undivided one-sixth share of an allotment of land which he alleged belonged to one David Perera by virtue of a deed of sale dated 26th February, 1886, and which the said Perera sold to the plaintiff on the 8th October, 1900.

The defendants pleaded that the land was purchased by one Sanchi Appuhami in the name of his two sons David Perera and Hendrick Appu, who were minors at the time of the execution of the conveyance in their favour; that for the maintenance of the said minor sons, Sanchi Appuhami leased to the second defendant and one Mohotti Appuhami the said land by deeds dated 2nd October, 1893, for a term of years; that the said Mohotti Appuhami assigned all his interest in the lease to the first defendant by deed dated 23rd March, 1897; and that the sale of the land to the plaintiff was subject to the lease above mentioned.

The District Judge found as follows: -

" At the request of Sanchi Appuhami, Sonuttara Unnanse executed a deed of sale in favour of Sanchi's minor sons David Perera and Abraham Perera (Hendrick Appu). The vendor delivered the deed to Sanchi, who thus became the dominus of the land, because he had no mandate from his sons to nominate them as his purchasers (2 N. L. R. 360). On 2nd October, 1903, Sanchi executed a deed of lease for ten years in favour of second defendant and Mohotti Appu. On 23rd March, 1897, Mohotti assigned his interest in the lease to the first defendant, David Appu. On 8th October, 1900, Sanchi's son David Perera executed a deed of sale for one-sixth of the garden in favour of plaintiff. Plaintiff complains that defendants had prevented him from entering into possession of the one-sixth.

" I find that under lease and assignment the defendants are entitled to the possession of the land in question, and I decree that plaintiff's action be dismissed with costs."

The plaintiff appealed. The case was heard in appeal on 27th February, 1903.

Sampayo, K. C., for the appellant.

Cur. adv. vult.

25th March, 1903. Moncreiff, J.-

I think the District Judge was right in this case. By deed of the 26th February, 1886, Sanchi Appuhami bought a portion of land in the names of his two minor sons, David Perera and Hendrick Perera. On the 8th October, 1900, the minor David Perera being then of age sold an undivided one-sixth of the land to the plaintiff.

On the 2nd October, 1893, during the minority of his sons, Sanchi Appuhami granted a twelve years' lease of the land to two persons. The second defendant is one of those lessees; the first defendant is the assignee of the other lessee, and they maintain

that David Perera sold the land to the plaintiff subject to their lease of 1893.

The issues were (1) whether Sanchi Appuhami had any right to grant the lease of 1893; (2) whether the land was transferred subject to the lease; (3) to what damages the plaintiff was entitled.

I am not aware whether this Court has recognized leases of premises belonging to minor children when made by parents-there being no g

Click Here to Read the rest of this document