PERERA v. PERERA et al.

Present: Mr. Justice Wendt, Mr. Justice Middleton, and
Mr. Justice Wood Renton.

PERERA v. PERERA et al.

D. C., Colombo, 20,449.

Fiscal's sale-Pendency of partition suit-Validity-" Alienation "-Partition Ordinance (No. 10 of 1863), s. 17.

Section 17 of Ordinance No. 10 of 1868 enacts: "Whenever any legal proceedings shall have been instituted for obtaining a partition or sale of any property as aforesaid, it shall not be lawful for any of the owners to alienate or hypothecate his undivided share or interest herein, unless and until the Court before which the same were instituted shall, by its decree in the matter, have refused to grant the application for such partition or sale, as the case may be; and any such alienation or hypothecation shall be void."

Held, that this section applies to voluntary and not to necessary alienations, and that a Fiscal's sale of the shares of some of the co-owners pending a partition suit is valid.

Held, also, that the Fiscal's purchaser was entitled to be substituted on the record in place of the parties whose interests he purchased.

The judgment in Annamalai Pillai v. Perera (6 N. L. R. 108) explain

Click Here to Read the rest of this document