1926 Present: Garvin and Dalton J J.

BRAMPY SINNO v, BOOTH et al.

316-D. C. Kalutara, 11,786.

Consolidation of several contiguous allotments-Registration as a distinct corpus; in a fresh- folia-Absence of registration in respect of one lot-Subsequent registration of this lot in a different folio-Right folio-Section 24 of Ordinance No. 14 of 1891.

Where several allotments are registered in a fresh folio as a distinct corpus with appropriate references to previous registration,-

Held, that the proper folio for a subsequent registration of a lot having no registration prior to that of the consolidated property, was the folio in which the consolidated whole was registered.

On a Crown grant dated March 14, 1910, two persons obtained title to a land named Pahalawela. Their interest in Pahalawela was acquired by F in 1916. The same year F mortgaged with V six contiguous allotments, including Pahalawela, under the name of Mudugomuwa estate-a distinct corpus. The bond was registered on June 12, 1016, in folio H 73/331, with appropriate references

1 (1921) 23 N. L. R. 194.( 27 )

to previous registration of only five of the six lots. On this date neither the Crown grant relating to Pahalawela, nor the conveyance to F had been registered. P put his bond in suit in 1920 and, in execution of the decree in his favour, became the purchaser of Mudugomuwa on a Fiscal's transfer which was registered on May 24. 1922, in folio H 73/331. In 1923 the added defendant obtained title to Mudugomuwa on a duly registered deed from P.

The Crown grant relating to Pahalawela and the deed of transfer in favour of F were registered on June 28, 1916, and June 24, 1916. respectively, in folio H 73/358. On September 17, 1920, F executed a deed conveying Pahalawela to the plaintiff and the defendant jointly. This deed was registered in Folio H 73/358. On the institution of the action by plaintiff for the partition of Pahalawela the added defendant intervened, and his title was held to prevail. In appeal this judgment was affirmed.

H. V. Perera (with Weerasooriya), for plaintiff, appellant

 Drieberg, K. C. (with Rajapaksa), for added defendant, respondent.

May 5, 1926. GARVIN  J.

It is common ground between the parties to this appeal that the land Pahalawela, which is the subject of the contest, originally belonged to the Crown. By its grant No. 49,670 of March 14. 1910, the Crown conveyed the land to two persons, Baba Singho and Daniel Fernando, who by their deed No. 17,257 of May 24. 1916, sold and transferred it to Enid Fernando. The land Pahalawela is in extent 33 acres 0 roods, and 8 perches. At the date of her purchase Enid Fernando was the owner of five other allotments of land, which she had consolidated and was holding as one estate of about 188 acres in extent. Pahalawela was immediately incorporated in that estate, and the whole extent of 221 acres 8 roods and 38 perches, known as Mudugomuwa estate, was by bond No. 15 of June 8, 1916, mortgaged by Enid Fernando and her husband to Arthur Pate.

At the date of this mortgage neither the Crown grant nor any of the other deeds hereinbefore referred to, and under which Enid Fernando claimed title, had been registered. Arthur Pate submitted the bond in his favour for registration. As required by the Registration Ordinance, there was set out on the face of the bond the reference to the volume and folio in which each of the five other lots, which with Pahalawela went to make up Mudugomuwa estate, and with reference to Pahalawela the bond showed that there was no previous registration. It will be seen that the applicant for registration gave the fullest possible information to

the registering authorities. The bond was registered on June 12, 1916, and the manner in which registration was effected was as follows: -

The bond was registered in folio H 73/331, a new folio opened in respect of the consolidated land Mudugomuwa esta