Ukku V. Rankiri

 

Present : The Hon. Sir Joseph T. Hutchinson, Chief Justice,

and Mr. Justice Wendt.

 

UKKU v. RANKIRI et al.

 

D. C., Kandy, 17,688.

 

Estoppel by the deed-Notarial instrument-English Law-Estoppel by conduct-Evidence Act, ss. 100 and 115.
 

The English Law of estoppel by deed does not apply to Ceylon.

 

A   notarially   attested   instrument   in  Ceylon   is   not   equivalent   to   a   deed under seal under the      English Law.

 

 Don Cornelis v. Manuel Perera 1 and Tissera v. Tissera 2 referred to.

 

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Kandy.    The facts sufficiently appear in the judgments.

 

Van Langenberg, for the plaintiff, appellant.

 

W. Pereira, K.C., S.-G., for the defendants, respondents.

 

Cur. adv. vult.

 

March 26, 1908.   HUTCHINSON C.J.-

 

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment dismissing the action as regards some of the lands claimed.
 

The plaintiff says that Sundara, her husband, died in June, 1898, being the owner by purchase of the lands described in the plaint; that she, as his widow, is entitled to the possession of the lands for her life; that the defendants have since 1901 been in the wrongful and forcible possession of the lands, and she asks for a declaration of her title, and for possession, and for mesne profits and damages.
 

The defendants in their answer say that they cannot identify most of the lands described in the plaint, but that they believe that the plaintiff claims some of the lands described in a deed of August 24, 1901, and in the schedule to the answer; and they disclaim title to and deny their possession of one of the lands mentioned in the plaint. With regard to the lands described in the schedule to the answer, they say that Sundara was the owner of them by paternal inheritance and not by purchase, and died possessed of them, and that the plaintiff took out letters of administration to his estate, and that as administratrix she by the deed of August '24, 1901, conveyed the said lands, as the paraveni property of the intestate, to his sister and next of kin and heir-at-law, the first defendant, Rankiri, who has since been in lawful possession of them by virtue of the said

 

1 Ram. (1851) p. 161.
2 (1896) 2 N. L. R. 238.

 

deed.  They   say  that  the   plaintiff  is   estopped  by  the  deed from denying that the lands were the paraveni property of  Sundara, and that she is estopped from claiming any interest in the lands after she had so transferred them.  And the second defendant disclaims title to the lands, and says that he is the son of the first defendant.
 

Two preliminary issues of law were settled, the first of which was- " Is the plaintiff estopped by her deed of August 24, 1901, from denying that any of the lands affected by that deed were portions of the paraveni property of Sundara?" The District Judge held that she was estopped, and dismissed the action so far as the lands in Schedule A of that deed were concerned, with liberty to the plaintiff to continue the action as to any lands not covered by that deed.
 

By the deed of 1901 the plaintiff recites that Sundara was by paternal and maternal inheritance entitled to the lands described in Schedule A; that he died on June 5, 1898, and administration to his estate was granted to her on November 10, 1898; that he left his sister Rankiri as his sole heiress, on whom devolved all his paraveni property; and that the administratrix had been called upon to convey to his said heiress the said paraveni lands and to close the estate, and she accordingly conveys the said lands to Rankiri.
 

The plaintiff does not say that this deed was executed under any mistake of fact or of law; she does not ask to have any mistake rectified; but she treats the conveyance as a nullity, arguing that her life interest in the land vested in her on her husband's death, and that no conveyance of it to her by t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document