Mudianse Et Al. V. Sellandyar Et Al.,

Present : Mr. Justice Wood Renton and Mr. Justice Grenier.

MUDIANSE, et al. v. SELLANDYAP, et al.

D.C., Kurunegala, 2,493.

Compensation for improvements-Persons holding under a planting agreement - Bight to compensation - Lessees - Roman-Dutch Law - Principle of assessment.   

    Where a person improves land under a planting agreement with the owner, and is subsequently ejected by the transferee of the owner, such person is entitled to compensation for improvements.

    GRENIER A.J.-A lessee of land is entitled, under certain circumstances, to claim compensation for improvements made by him.

    APPEAL by the defendants. The facts are fully set out in the following judgment of the District Judge (Bertram Hill,
Esq.):-

    " The plaintiffs in this case and the sixth defendant took from the third, fourth, and fifth defendants the land Welikandehenyaya on the 11th January, 1900, on a planting agreement registered on 10th December, 1903.

" The terms of the agreement were briefly: (1) that the planters should put in coconut plants, and' the land was to be divided between the two parties at the expiration of ten years, and that meanwhile the planters were to enjoy the whole of the produce of the plaintains, fine grain, &c.; (2) that if any dispute should arise regarding the title of the first party (i.e., the landowners, third, fourth, and fifth defendants) to the land and thereby prevent the planters from carrying on the plantation, the first party should be responsible to the planters for all the damages suffered thereby.

    " The plaintiffs say that they duly began planting, and in December, 1903, the first and second defendants, alleging that the third, fourth, and fifth defendants had transferred the land to them, forcibly ejected the plaintiffs.

    " They claim damages, by reason of their being prevented by the defendants from planting the land, to the amount of Rs.2,000, and pray for such further and other relief as the Court shall seem meet.

    " The first and second defendants deny any forcible entry on the land, admit that they purchased the land Welikandehenyaya from the vendee of the third defendant and from defendants fourth and fifth, profess to be in peaceful and lawful possession, and claim that as their deeds of sale were registered prior to the agreement referred to in the plaint, they ought to prevail in law against the said agreement, which is of no force or avail in law.

    " The third and fourth defendants aver that the plaintiffs could not carry out the terms of the planting agreement, and surrendered it.

    The fifth defendant filed no answer. The sixth defendant was joined as a defendant, because it was alleged he was unwilling to join1 the plaintiffs and was acting in collusion with the other defendants.

    " The case was decided by arbitration, but as the fifth defendant did not sign the reference to arbitration, the arbitrators' award was set aside in appeal.

    " The main issues between the plaintiffs and the first and second defendants are-

    (1) Is the deed of agreement of any force in law against the prior registered deeds of sale of the first and second defendants?

    (2) If this question is answered in the negative even, does it constitute a valid defence to plaintiffs' action?

    " Before going further, I should state that I do not see any reason for holding that there was any fraud perpetrated by the first and second defendants in getting their deeds registered at an early date. They may have been aware that the planting agreement was not registered, but this fact (as the authorities quoted by Mr. Markus show) raises no presumption of fraud.

    " I should also add that I see no reason to doubt that the plaintiffs planted the land according to the terms of the agreement, and that the entry of the first and second defendants in the land was a forcible one-that they were in fact trespassers

Click Here to Read the rest of this document