Singho V. Wijesinghe Et Al.,

1920 Present : De Sampayo J.

SINGHO v. WIJESINGHE et al.

 45-C. R. Avissawella, 10,459.

Registration-Different names-Is identity of names essential ?-Wrong folio.

A sold her interest in a land to the plaintiff by deed dated January 4,1916, and registered on January 24,1919. Subsequently by deed dated January 3, 1919, A sold the land to the defendant, and this deed was registered on January 8, 1919. Plaintiff's deed was registered in a folio in which a deed relating to the land was first registered (a deed of 1900). Defendant's deed was registered in a different folio and under a different name. In a deed of 1856 this land was called Danketiyahena, and under this name the land was sold to the defendant. But in plaintiff's deed and in the deed of 1900 the name given was Kehelkotuwehitinawatta.

Held, that the plaintiff had superior title, as identity of name was not essential for registration.

" I think the Commissioner, in holding, as he did, that the registration of this particular land should have been according to the name by which the land was called in the old deed, is not right."

THE facts are set out in the judgment.

Croos-Dabrera (with him E. G. P. Jayatilleke), for plaintiff, appellant.-The right folio is that in which a deed regarding a land is first registered and all folios connected with such folio. The defendant's deed is registered in a different folio unconnected with. the original folio. The plaintiff's deed, on the other hand, is registered in a folio connected with the original folio. The defendant cannot, therefore, claim the benefit of prior registration. The plaintiff's deed is prior in date, and therefore his title is better. The Commissioner has decided in defendant's favour on the ground that his deed gives the correct name of the land. It is submitted that this makes no difference so long as the corpus is the same. It is the registration of a deed regarding a particular land that determines the folio. There is no question that the same land has been dealt with by both the deeds. Counsel cited the judgment of the Privy Council in Rajapakse v. Fernando.1[(1920) 21 N. L. R. 496.]

Canekeratne, for defendants, respondents.-The name given to the land in defendant's deed is that which occurs in the earliest deed affecting the land. The plaintiff's deed gives the land a different

name. The proper folio should be that in which a deed regarding the land is registered under its correct name. To hold otherwise would cause much inconvenience and hardship, and may open the door to fraud.

Cur. adv. vult.

July 20,1920. DE SAMPAYO J -

This appeal raises an important question relating to registration of deeds. Ban Menika was the admitted owner of one-sixth share of a land which the plaintiff calls Kehelkotuwehitinawatta. She had a daughter named Nonahamy alias Dingiri Etena, who by deed dated January 4, 1916, registered on January 24, 1919, sold that interest to the plaintiff, but, notwithstanding that transaction, Nonahamy sold the share again to the defendant by deed dated January 3,1919, and registered on January 8,1919. It will be seen that the defendant's deed though subsequent in date was registered prior to the plaintiff's deed, and accordingly the defendant claims the benefit of prior registration by virtue of section 17 of the Land Registration Ordinance. Here the defendant is confronted with the fact that the plaintiff's deed was registered in a folio in which a deed relating to the land was first registered, namely, a deed of February, 1, 1900, whereas the defendant's deed was registered in a different folio, and so the plaintiff contends that the defendant's deed was not registered in the right folio. The defendant in his turn, however, seeks to meet the difficulty by relying on a difference in the name of the land. It appears that in a deed of 1856 relating to this land it was called Danketiyahena, and that is the nam

Click Here to Read the rest of this document