Back
JAYAMAHA et al. v. SINGAPPU
NLR13V348
June 2,1910
Present : The Hon. Sir Joseph T. Hutchison,
Chief Justice,
and Mr. Justice van Langenberg.
JAYAMAHA et al. v. SINGAPPU et al.
D: C, Chilaw, 3,669.
Joinder of plaintiffs, causes of action,
and defendants-Civil Procedure Code, ss. 17 and 18.
Two plaintiffs, who claimed to be each entitled to two distinct lots, A and
B, jointly brought an action for declaration of title and ejectment and damages
against several defendants, of whom the ninth and tenth were alleged to be
in possession of lot B, and the others, each of distinct lots of A. The
defendants objected-
(1) That there was a misjoinder of plaintiffs, as they were not owners in common
of these lots.
(2) That there was a misjoinder of defendants, in that the defendants were not
jointly in possession of all the lots.
(3) That there was a misjoinder of causes of action, as possession was taken of
the lots at various times.
Held, that the first objection was sound, and that the second and third were
not.
The Supreme Court remitted the case to the District Court, for it to deal with
any application made to it to strike out one of the plaintiffs.
THE
facts are set out in the judgments.
Seneviratne (with him Chitty), for the defendants, appellants.
Bawa, Acting S.-G., for the respondents.
Cur. adv. vult.
June 2, 1910. HUTCHINSON C.J.-
The plaintiffs set out in their plaint that the Crown, being entitled to the
land called Paluwelagalamukalana, shown in plan No. 60,856, dated February 29,
1864, and in plan No. 1,117, dated October 2, 1903, both signed by the
Surveyor-General, granted it on September 23, 1864, to Bastian Perera, whose
successors in title transferred the northern portion of it on October 20, 1896,
to the first plaintiff; that in 1901 the first plaintiff sold and conveyed about
6 acres of the said north portion to the ninth defendant, from whom it passed
under a Fiscal's transfer to the second plaintiff. I will refer to the portion
which they say is still vested in the first plaintiff as A, and to the portion,
which they say is vested in the second plaintiff (6 acres 3 roods and 12
perches) as B. They allege that the seventeen defendants are in unlawful
possession of different parcels of A and B, all of them pleading title to the
whole of A and B on an alleged sannas. And they claim a declaration of their
title, and recovery of possession, and damages. They attach to the plaint a
sketch showing that different defendants have been from different dates, and
still are, in possession of separate pieces of A; thus, the first defendant has
been in possession of about 1/2 an acre since 1901, the second and
other defendants in possession of another 1/2 an acre since
1901, the fourth defendant in possession of another of an acre since 1904, and
so on; and that B has been in possession of the fifth, ninth, and tenth
defendants since 1906.
The defendants, except the fourth and ninth (who filed no answer), joined in an
answer, in which they first said that, as a matter of law, the action is bad for
misjoinder both of parties and of causes of action. They also denied the
plaintiffs' title, and said that, by virtue of a royal sannas granted to his
ancestors, one Thelenis Gamarala was the owner and in possession of the-
entirety of the land which the plaintiffs said was comprised in the Crown grant;
that the heirs of Thelenis Gamarala (of whom several of the defendants are some)
have acquired a prescriptive title to the portions of which the plaint says they
are in unlawful possession; and that the fifth defendant, to whom Gamarala in
1886 granted B to be planted, took possession under that grant, and has since
1886 been in the undisturbed and uninterrupted possession of B by a title
adverse to and independent of the plaintiffs.
Several issues were suggested, but by consent of the parties (except the fourth
and ninth defendants, who did not appear) the Court tried first t
