1922 Present: Bertram C.J.

DIAS v. NIKKO.

53-C. R. Galle, 2,564.

Action, for trespass-Constructive possession of plaintiff.

Mere constructive possession is not a sufficient basis for an action for trespass,

THE facts appear from the judgment.

Soertsz, for plaintiff, appellant.

Keuneman, for defendant, respondent.

August 25, 1922. BERTRAM C.J.-

I cannot allow this appeal. The plaintiff is the Crown grantee, and he brings the action in respect of an alleged trespass, but at the date of the trespass he had not obtained his grant. It is clear from the case (Chellamma v. Navasivayam) [(1907) 3 Bal. 209,] that at that date he had no title, and though it would appear from the case of Daudu Maricar v. Edirisuriya [(1910) 5 Bal. 39.] that if a purchaser has taken possession of the land, even before a deed of transfer has been obtained, he had a sufficient interest in the land to enable him to bring a possessory action or to sue for trespass ; in this case it does not appear that the plaintiff had ever assumed active possession of the land. The record is not full, but at least this is clear that a document was put in by the plaintiff which disclosed