Silva V. Silva Et Al.,

[Full Bench.]

Present : Sir Joseph T. Hutchinson, Chief Justice, Mr. Justice
Wood Renton, and Mr. Justice Grenier.

SILVA v. SILVA et al.

D. C. Kandy, 17,764.

Heirs, rights of- Administration-Concurrence of administrator unnecessary-Vesting of property in heir-Extent of administrator's title-Conveyance by minor-Ratification after attaining, majority.

    Title to immovable property belonging to the estate of a deceased person does not vest in the administrator of the estate of such person; and a conveyance by the heir of the deceased without the concurrence or assent of the administrator is valid, subject to the right of the administrator to deal with the property for purposes-of administration.

    HUTCHINSON C.J.-The personal representative retains the power to sell the property for the purposes of administration but his non-concurrence in the conveyance by the heirs does not otherwise affect its validity.

    GRENIER A.J.-On the death of a person his estate, in the absence of a will, passes at once by operation of law to his heirs, and the dominium vests in them. Once it so vests they cannot be divested of it, except by the several well known modes recognized by law.

    Dictum of BONSER C.J. in Fernando v. Dochchi 1 disapproved.

    ACTION rei vindicatio. Don Lewis de Silva was the owner of the-property in dispute; he died in August, 1903, leaving as his heirs his brother, the first defendant, and Mendis Appu, his nephew ; letters of administration to his estate were granted to the first defendant by the District Court of Kandy in Case No. 2,321. Mendis Appu, who was then a minor, by deed No. 7,786, dated 24th March, 1905, registered on 25th March, 1905, sold to-plaintiff one-half share of the property. Mendis Appu, after attaining the age of majority, by his deed No. 1,359, dated 25th January, 1906, confirmed the sale to the plaintiff in these terms: " I do hereby declare that I have sold, assigned, and transferred the lands in the schedule hereto described to Gardiye Mana- waduge Nonis de Silva, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, and that I have no further right or interest therein, and that I shall warrant, and defend the same to him and them for ever. On 6th February, 1906, the estate of the deceased was judicially settled, and Mendis Appu, as an heir of the deceased, was declared entitled to half share of the estate. The first defendant claimed title

Foot Notes :

1 (1901) 5 N. L. R. 15.

to the said half share by virtue of transfer No. 7,399, dated the 5th April, 1906, executed by the said Mendis Appu; and the second defendant claimed to be a mortgagee with possession under the first defendant.

    The following issues were framed at the trial: -

    (1) Are the deeds pleaded by the plaintiff bad and invalid in law, and do they convey any title ?

    (2) Whether the defendants are estopped from raising the objection that the plaintiff's title deeds are invalid in law?   The District Judge (J. H. Templer, Esq.) held as follows: -

    " This case is one of no little difficulty. There can be no doubt that G. P. H. Mendis Appu by his deed No. 7,786 on 24th March, 1905, conveyed his half-share in ten lands to the plaintiff. Mendis Appu, it is admitted, at that date was a minor, and he appears at that by his deed No. 1,359 of 25th January, 1906, Mendis Appu, favour for the lands in question. There can be no doubt either that by his deed No. 1,359 of 25th January, 1906, Mendis Appu, having then attained his majority, confirmed his sale of the lands in question to the plaintiff. Meanwhile he had applied for and on 6th February, 1906, he obtained from this Court an order in the testamentary suit declaring him entitled to a half share of the lands in dispute, and thereafter in fraud of his two deeds to the plaintiff he executed a conveyance of all his interest in the lands in question to his uncle S. T. D. E, S. Silva.

    " Mr. L

Click Here to Read the rest of this document