The Baptist Missionary Society Corporation V. Jayawardene Et Al.,

1918 Present: Bertram C.J. and Ennis J.

THE BAPTIST MISSIONARY SOCIETY CORPORATION
v. JAYAWARDENE et al.

90-D. C. Chilaw, 5,502,

English Companies' Act, 1862, s. 21 - Prohibition against religious corporation holding more than 2 acres - Trust - Interpretation of deed - Prescription.

Section 21 of the English Companies' Act, 1862, which prohibits a religious corporation from holding more than 2 acres of land without the sanction of the Board of Trade, does not prevent a corporation registered under the Act from holding more than 2 acres in Ceylon.

Gunasekera "assigned or set over" unto the Rev Pigott, of the Baptist Society, " or his successor or successors in office," a certain lot of land, " so that they may possess the same and deal with it as they may desire."

In the deed it was stated that the donor had assigned the land " unto Rev. Pigott, of the Baptist Society of Colombo, to build a chapel for the purpose of preaching the gospel to the inhabitants of the place."

Held, that the deed did not create a trust in favour of the local congregation. If there was a trust at all there was a trust in favour of the society.

THE plaintiff corporation brought this action against the members of the Baptist church congregation at Madampe for a declaration that the plaintiff corporation was entitled to the Baptist church ,manse ,school buildings, and premises at Madampe and for the ejectment of the defendants.

The defendants filed answer denying that the plaintiff corporation was entitled to  the said buildings and premises ,or that the plaintiff corporation was entitled to eject the defendants from the said-premises and buildings.

The case went to trial on the following issues".-

(1) Have plaintiffs a cause of action against the defendants?

(2) Who were the previous holders of the premises in dispute?

(3) Did the congregation of the Baptist church at Madampe occupy the premises as tenants under such previous holders?

(4) Did the said congregation pay the annual rent of Re. 1 to plaintiffs for the said premises?

(5) Are the plaintiffs entitled to give notice to the said congregation to quit and restore possession of the said premises?

(6) If so, did plaintiffs give notice on February 27, 1916, to the said congregation to quit the said premises on April 1, 1916?

(7) Did the said plaintiffs become entitled to the said premises as detailed in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the plaint?

(8) Does the deed No. 73 of September 20, 1903, and deed No. 186 of November 5, 1903. convey the said premises to the plaintiffs?

(9) What is the real value of the said premises?

(10) Can the document dated September 20, 1871, referred to in the abstract of title attached to the plaint, be admitted in evidence
to prove plaintiffs' title?

(11) If so, does it convey title to the plaintiffs to the said premises?

(12) Have the said congregation been in wrongful possession of the said premises since April 1, 1916?

(13) Prescription on either side.

(14) Damages.

The learned District Judge gave judgment for the plaintiff corporation, as prayed for. The defendants appealed.

Bawa, K. C. (with him A. St. V. Jayawardene and Canakaratne), for the appellants.-The plaintiff corporation cannot maintain this action, as they do not have the capacity to hold more than 2 acres of land without the permission of the Board of Trade. See section 21 of Companies' Act, 1862 (English). This section is applicable not only to lands held in England, but to all lands which the corporation may wish to acquire in any part of the Empire. The sections 18 and 21 must be read together. The incorporation of a company does not give it all the rights of a private individual. The rights of a corporation are those which are defined in the Act and in the memorandum of incorporation.

Counsel cited Halsbury, vol. 5, pp. 385, 725; Ash bury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. v. Riche;1[(1875) L.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document