[FULL BENCH]

Present: The Hon. Sir Joseph T. Hutchinson, Chief Justice,
Mr. Justice Middleton, and Mr. Justice Wood Renton.

AMMAL v. KANGANY D. C, Kandy, 18,984.

    Purchase of land-Conveyance to minor by the seller at the request of his father-Payment of price by father-Delivery of deed to father.

Where a father by a notarial conveyance buys a land in the name of a minor child, the title to the land vests in the minor, though the father pays his own money for the land and himself accepts the delivery of the deed of conveyance.

Ranhamy v. Bastian Bedaralal and Perera v. David Appu2 overruled.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Kandy. One Muttusami, who was the owner of the land in dispute, sold and transferred the same by deed No. 5,479 dated March 23, 1889, to one Pitche, who was at that time a minor. Pitche, on September 10, 1907, sold and transferred the land to plaintiff. Plaintiff brought this action for declaration of title against the defendant, who he alleged was in wrongful possession. The defendant claimed to be entitled to possession of the land under a deed of lease dated March 15, 1890, from Pitche's father Arumugam, to whom deed No. 5,479 (of 1889) in favour of Pitche was delivered, and who had paid his own money for the land to Muttusami. The defendant contended that under the circumstances the title to the land vested in Arumugam. The District Judge held that title vested in Pitche by deed No. 5,479, and entered judgment for plaintiff.

The defendant appealed.

The case was referred to a Full Bench.

H. A. Jayewardene, for the appellant.-The father who paid his own money for the land had no mandate from his minor child to nominate him as purchaser; the title to the land vests in the father {Voet 18, 1, 8; Banhamy v. Bastian Vedarala;1 Perera v. David Appu2). This deed could not be looked upon as a deed of donation by the father to the child. There was no acceptance. Counsel also

1 (1897) 2 N. L. R. 360.
2 (1903) 6 N. L. R. 236.

Feb. 16,1910 cited Murugesu v. Appuhamy,1 Affefudeen v. Periatamby2," Fernando  v  Canangara,3  Avichi Chetty v. Fonseka,4 De Silva v. De Silva,5 Kangany Wtjetunga v. Misi Nona.6

De Sampayo, K. C., for the respondent, not called upon.

Cur. adv. vult.

February 16, 1910. HUTCHINSON C.J.-

This case was referred to a Court of three Judges in view of certain decisions " with regard to the acceptance by a father of a gift made by him to his son."

The plaint states that by deed No. 5,479 of March 23, 1889, Muttusami, being the owner, sold and transferred certain land to Pitche, son of Arumugam; that Pitche in 1907 sold and transferred it to the plaintiff, and that the defendant is wrongfully in possession; and the plaintiff claims for a declaration of his title and to recover possession. The defendant admits that Muttusami was the owner, and admits the execution of the deed No. 5,479, but says that it was executed by Muttusami in the name of Pitche, a minor, at the request of Pitche's father, who paid the consideration for the transfer and was put in possession, and that the deed was delivered to the father, who became the owner of the land under the deed; and the defendant claims to be in possession under a lease from Pitche's father, and to be entitled to compensation for his improvements. He also denies the execution of the conveyance to the plaintiff by Pitche.

The issues agreed on were: -

(1) Did Pitche gain title to the land by deed No. 5,479 ?

(2) Did Pitche by the deed of 1907 convey the land to the plaintiff ?

(3) Damages.

(4) Is the defendant entitled to compensation ?

The District Judge, by the judgment now under appeal dated October 5, 1909, answered the first, second, and fourth issues in the affirmative. The defendant appeals, and his counsel has contended that the first issue ought to be answered in the negative, on the ground set up in the defendant's answer. He contends that where a