Present : Bertram C.J. and Shaw J.    1920.

SILVA v. FERNANDO.

408-D. C. Negombo, 12,953.

Lis pendens-Is action pending even after decree ?-Sale pending mortgage action-Effect of registration of conveyance.

A suit is pending even after judgment until judgment is satisfied. A conveyance made by a mortgagor after decree is ineffectual as against the plaintiff, as a conveyance made pendente lite.

A sale pending a mortgage action is null and void as against the decree in that action, and could obtain no force or validity as against it by prior registration.

THIS was an action for declaration of title regarding lot B of a certain land. By final decree in partition suit dated January 17, 1911, and registered on February 17, 1911, this lot was allotted to the first defendant-respondent, who by deed No. 1,954 dated March 2, 1915, and registered on March 4, 1915, mortgaged the whole of the land partitioned, including the said lot, to the second defendant-appellant; the second defendant put the said

bond in suit on July 31, 1917, in case No. 25,427, C. R. Negombo, obtained decree on November 9, 1917, and sold the land on August 9, 1918. At such sale the second defendant became the purchaser upon deed No. 2,662 dated September 24, 1918, and registered on October 24, 1918. The decree was not registered. During the pendency of the said mortgage action, the first defendant by deed No. 460 dated June 17, 1918, and registered on June 21, 1918, sold the said lot B to the plaintiff-respondent. The second defendant's deeds were registered in the folios connected with the folio in which the first transaction regarding this land occurs, whereas the plaintiff's deed was registered in a folio connected with the folio in which the partition decree was registered and unconnected with the original folio. The plaintiff instituted this action on August 6, 1918, to have himself declared the owner of lot B and to have the mortgage bond in second defendant's favour declared null and void. The learned District Judge gave judgment for the plaintiff on the ground that the bond was registered in the wrong folio and the decree in the mortgage action was null and void as against the registered transfer in plaintiff's favour. The second defendant appealed.

Croos-Dabrera, for second defendant, appellant.-The plaint discloses no cause of action against the second defendant. Plaintiff's possession has not been disturbed. Fernando v. Silva 1[(1878) 1 S. C. C. 27.]. This is a judgment of the Full Court and should be followed. [BERTRAM C.J.-Has not this decision been explained in a later case ?] Yes, in Ceylon Land and Produce Go. v. Malcolmson, 2[(1908) 12 N. L. R. 16.] but the facts were different. There the two competing deeds were registered in the same folio, but in this case plaintiff comes into Court on the footing that the second defendant's deed is registered in the wrong folio. How can it be therefore said that this deed is a blot on plaintiff's title ? On the question of registration, it is submitted that the second defendant's deed is registered in the right folio, and that the plaintiff's deed is registered in the wrong folio. Section 15 (1) of the Registration Ordinance, No. 14 of 1891, requires the Registrar to allot a, book for every defined division in a district or province, and under section 18(1) all deeds should be registered in the appointed page or folio of that book. The words " right" and " wrong " folio are relative, and have reference to a folio already determined. The right folio is that in which the first transaction regarding a particular land appears and all connected folios. The second defendant's deed is registered in a folio connected with the original folio. The plaintiff's deed is, no doubt, registered in the folio where the partition decree is registered, but it is not registered in the right folio, inasmuch as there is nothing to connect it with the old