Back
APPUHAMY v. THE DOLOSWALA TEA AND RUBBER Co. LTD.
NLR25V267
Present: Garvin and Jayewardene
A. JJ. 1923.
APPUHAMY v. THE DOLOSWALA TEA AND RUBBER CO., LTD
90-D. C. Ratnapura, 3,508.
Lease for ninety-nine years-Action for declaration of title against lessee
by third party-Bights of lessor and lessee to claim compensation
for improvements-Bona fide possessor'-Mala fide possessor-Is
lessee for ninety-nine years a bona fide possessor ?
A purchased a land from B and leased it for ninety-nine years to
C, who planted it with rubber. D, who was an owner of a share,
brought an action for declaration of title. A claimed compensation
for improvements. The District Judge held that A was not a bona
fide possessor as he had notice of D's title at the time of planting,
and was not the improver, and dismissed his claim for compensation.
The Supreme Court- held that A was in the circumstances a bona fide possessor
and an improver, and that he was entitled to compensation.
There is no reason why such a
lessor should not receive compensation for improvements in cases in which he can fairly be said to the
improver, though the actual work of improvement
was done by his lessee
JAYEWARDENE A.J.-In the case of a lease for a long period
a lessee may be treated as a bona fide possessor.
THE added defendant, Mr. P. D. G. Clarke, purchased this land and leased it for
ninety-nine years to the defendant company, the Doloswala Tea and Rubber Co.,
who planted it with rubber. The plaintiff disputed the added defendant's title
to a certain share, and instituted this action for declaration of title to that
share. The defendant company, inter alia, claimed compensation for improvements.
The Supreme Court held on the first appeal that plaintiff was entitled to a
certain share, and that defendant company being a lessee was not entitled to
compensation. The case was sent back for an inquiry as to whether the added
defendant (lessor) was entitled to compensation in respect of improvements
effected by the lessee. The added defendant filed pleading formulating his
claim. The District Judge held that the added defendant was not entitled to
compensation. The added defendant appealed.
The judgment of the Supreme Court on the first appeal is reported in volume 23
(page 129).
E. W. Perera (with him W. Chas. Silva and Choksy), for added defendant,
appellant.
E. J. Samarawickreme (with him R. L. Pereira and H. V. Perera), for plaintiffs,
respondents.
Cur. adv. vult.
October 23, 1923. GARVIN A.J.-
The plaintiffs were upon a previous appeal to this Court declared entitled to
two undivided third shares in a land called and known as the
Nahalawaturalayepanguwa. This land had been purchased by Mr. P. D. G. Clarke,
the added defendant, who leased it, together with several other allotments to
which he had acquired title, to the defendants, the Doloswala Tea and Rubber
Company. The land was opened and planted with rubber, and at the time this
action was instituted the plantation was about eight years old. An award of
compensation to the defendant company was also set aside on the ground that a
lessee who had improved his leasehold is not entitled to maintain a claim for
compensation against a third party who establishes an independent title to the
land superior to that of his lessor. This Court indicated, however, that a
lessor might possibly be entitled to claim the benefit of the improvements made
during the pendency of the lease and successfully maintain a claim for
compensation in respect of those improvements. To enable this lessor to file
proper pleadings formulating his claim
upon such principles of law or equity as he thought were applicable
the case was remitted to the District Court. The Court, while
expressing doubt as to whether such a principle applicable to his
case could be found, granted to the defendant company leave, if so
advised, to formulate a claim if it was thought that the claim could be brought
within the a
