Peris V. Perera Et Al.

Present : The Hon. Mr. A. G. Lascelles, Acting Chief Justice, and
Mr. Justice Middleton.
 
PERIS v. PERERA et al.

D. C, Colombo, 21,270.

Registration-Prior deeds-Chain of title-Registration of immediate transfer-Ordinance No. 14 of 1891, s. 17.

    A P, being owner of one-sixth share of a land, conveyed it by deed dated 8th April, 1867 (unregistered), to his sister, the twenty-sixth defendant. The twenty-sixth defendant sold the said one-sixth share and a one forty-eighth share, which she inherited from her father, to L P, by deed dated 19th November, 1876. ID. execution against L P, these shares were sold by the Fiscal and purchased by S P, who obtained transfer dated 15th February, 1889, and by deed dated 2nd December, 1890, conveyed them to P P, who by deed dated 4th June, 1891, and registered on 15th July, 1891, sold them to the twenty-sixth defendant. On a writ issued against A P, his one-sixth share was sold and purchased by S H, who obtained Fiscal's transfer dated 24th October, 1889, and registered in 1897, and sold it to P G, who sold to the plaintiff. L P, by deed dated 25th June, 1903, and registered on 25th July, 1903, sold one forty-eighth share to the plaintiff.

    In a contest of title between the plaintiff and the twenty-sixth defendant as to the one, sixth and one forty-eighth shares,-

    Held, that the twenty-sixth defendant had better title.

    Held, also, that where a deed under which a person claims title is registered, it is immaterial that certain earlier deeds forming links in the title have not been registered.

    THE facts are fully set out in the following judgment of the Additional District Judge (F. E. Dias, Esq.): - " The plaintiff started this action under the Partition Ordinance against thirty-six defendants for the purpose of partitioning a small garden of some 3 acres and 30 perches called Delgahawatta. but as nearly all the parties have been in possession of divided shares for many years, and the extent of their interests is admitted, the plaintiff has obtained leave to stamp the proceedings, and to confine his prayer to a declaration of title as regards a one-sixth and one forty-eighth share, which both he and the twenty-sixth defendant, Christian Perera, are claiming through a common source.

   " The plaintiff is claiming altogether one-sixth plus one forty-eighth plus one-twelfth plus one forty-eighth, equal to seven twenty-fourths, and what we have to decide is whether his title to the first two shares is to prevail over that of the twenty-sixth defendant. His title to the last two shares (one-twelfth plus one forty-eighth) is not disputed.

    We need not go too far back into the very complicated titles of all the co-owners to this land, as for our present purpose we are only concerned with the title of one, N. Abraham Perera. This man was admittedly the owner of one-sixth of the whole land by purchase in 1865, and in 1867 by the deed No. 7,377 (marked P 1, and not registered) he sold it to the twenty-sixth defendant, his own sister. From their father, Carolis, they later on inherited one forty-eighth each, and in 1876 by the deed marked P 2 the twenty-sixth defendant sold her inherited one forty-eighth plus her purchased one-sixth to one Don Louis Perera. This man was sold up by the Fiscal, who in 1889 by his transfer No. 3,964 (marked D 1) conveyed those one-sixth and one forty-eighth shares to one M. Suwaris Peris. He in 1890 by deed No. 12,318 (marked D 2) sold the shares to one L. Paulis Perera, who by deed No. 5,161 dated 4th June, 1891 (marked D 3), sold them to the twenty-sixth defendant. Neither P 1, P 2, D 1, or D 2 has been registered, but D 3 in favour of the twenty-sixth defendant has been registered in July, 1891.

    Don Louis Perera, notwithstanding the Fiscal's sale of his one-sixth plus one forty-eighth in the year 1889, purported to convey those same shares to the plaintiff by de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document