FERDINANDIS v. DON DAVITH.

FERDINANDIS  v.  DON  DAVITH.

D. C.,  Matara,  1616.

Partition Ordinance No. 10 of 1863, s. 19-Piecemeal determination of issues as to title between several co-owners-No appeal till general preliminary decree entered.

    Where several separate contests as to title arise in an action for partition, and are disposed of at separate hearings,-

    Held, that though each order of the Court determining the title between parties is appealable under section 19 of the Partition Ordinance, 1863, yet the progress of the suit should not be interrupted by appeals in which the greater number of the parties to the suit have no interest.

    The Supreme Court is in the habit of refusing to entertain appeals against orders, which are not conclusive between all the parties, but will await the entry of the general preliminary decree.
The decision of the lower Court in each piecemeal investigation of title should not take the form of a decree.

    IN this case the plaintiff brought his action on 26th October, 1895, claiming 96/360 of the field Polwattegodella, and he asked for partition thereof, assigning the other shares among the eight defendants.

    The seventh defendant, however, claimed adversely to the second defendant the share assigned to the latter.

    The ninth, tenth, and eleventh defendants came in on 31st January, 1896', as added parties, claiming adversely to the plaintiff the same share he had claimed.

    The twelfth to eighteenth defendants came in on 25th August, 1896, as added parties, claiming shares adversely to some of the original parties.

    Three other defendants, the twenty-sixth, twenty-seventh, and twenty-eighth were added by the Court during the course of the hearing on 31st July, 1899. and 17th August, 1899.

    The case came before the District Court on 7th January, 1897, for trial of the issues raised (1) between the plaintiff and the ninth, tenth, and eleventh defendants; (2) between the seventh and second defendants.

    The Judge recorded that it was not clear what the issues were between the twelfth to eighteenth defendants. He heard evidence, but found that further information was necessary as to the pedigree of the parties whom he ordered to be produced. He proceeded, however, to dispose of the issue between the plaintiff and the ninth, tenth, and eleventh defendants which depended on documents and possession only.

    Judgment was given in favour of the plaintiff on this issue-on 21st January, 1897, and a decree was entered declaring the plaintiff entitled, as against the ninth tenth, and eleventh defendants, to the share in contest between them.

    An appeal was filed by the ninth, tenth, and eleventh defend-ants, but was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 19th May, 1897, for default of appearance.

    Further proceedings took place in the District Court on 15th December, 1897, when the Judge framed the issue between the second and seventh defendants, and recorded that all the other parties admitted the claims of the twelfth to eighteenth defendants. He dismissed the claim of the seventh defendant as against the second defendant, and entered a decree declaratory of the right of the seventh defendant as reduced. The decree declared no other rights, and no general preliminary decree was entered, though all the claims then on the record had, in the opinion of the District Judge. been disposed at.

    The seventh defendant appealed. The case was argued on 28th February, 1897.

    Bawa, for appellant.

    Van Langenberg, for second defendant, respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

218

2nd March, 1899. LAWRIE, J.-

    In the course of this partition suit it was necessary to examine the titles of the parties interested, and on the 21st January, 1897, the District Judge of Matara entered a formal decree as between the plaintiff and the ninth, tenth, and eleventh defendants, that the plaintiff was entitled to one-third of fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document