1927 Present: Schneider J., Lyall Grant J., and Maartensz A.J.

DE SILVA v. LAPAYA et al.

136-D. C. Kandy, 31,975.

Registration-Misdescription of village-Bight folio-Priority-Land Registration Ordinance, No. 14 of 1891, s. 24.

Where, owing to a misdescription of the village in which a land is situate, a deed affecting the land is registered in a folio different from that in which it would have been registered, had the correct village been given,-

Held, that the deed was not duly registered in accordance with the provisions of the Land Registration Ordinance, and would not have the benefit of priority conferred by the Ordinance.

Rajapakse v. Fernando 1 [21 N. L. R. 495.] distinguished.

THIS was an action for declaration of title to a land called Edandekumbura, which belonged to one Ganitha, who sold it to his sister Ranee by deed No. 16,119 (P1). On the death of Ranee without issue, Ganitha re-acquired the land by inheritance and sold an undivided half share to Charles Silva by deed No. 111 (P2) dated July 20, 1923, registered on July 21, 1923. Charles Silva sold it to the plaintiff by deed No. 150 (P3) dated March 17, 1924, and registered on March 18, 1924. Deeds P1, P2, P3 were registered in Division D, Volume 57, folios 257 and 258. The land was described in these as situated in the village Hapugaspitiya.

The first defendant-appellant bought the land at a sale in execution of a writ and obtained Fiscal's transfer No. 20,223 dated .January 18, .1923 (D1). If. was registered in 1923 in Division D, Volume 91, folio 74. The Fiscal's transfer describes the land as being situated in village Ratmalkaduwa. The question raised in the case was whether the misdescription with regard to the village

in P1 and the other deeds in plaintiff's chain of title deprives them of the right of priority over the defendant's Fiscal's transfer as not being registered in the right folio.

H. V. Perera, for defendant, appellant,-The question to be decided is whether the land was properly registered.

In P1, P2, P3, P4 it is registered as a land situate in Hapugaspitiya.

D1 describes the land as being in Ratmalkaduwa.

Hapugaspitiya and Ratmalkaduwa are two distinct villages. The land is, in point of fact, in Ratmalkaduwa.

Under section 23 of the Ordinance No. 14 of 1891, the description to be given when a deed is produced for registration includes the name of correct village. The Village Index would refer to a number of folios in the book. According to the Ordinance there should be a separate book for each village. The practice of the Registration Department may not be in compliance with the provisions of the Ordinance.

The Village Index should be regarded as fulfilling the requirements of the Ordinance, for it is the index which gives the necessary information in relation to a land, and to which a person seeking information in practice always refers. Rules by Governor made on August 3, 1923.

Section 17 does not define what registration is. The village must be mentioned carefully. Failure to name the village is fatal to the validity of registration.

Keuneman (with Navaratnam), for plaintiff, respondent.-The Registrar has to facilitate the obtaining of information. He keeps a Village Index as a matter of convenience. Two points to be kept in view are (1) Correct division (section 15). Section 16 says that every deed shall be registered in the branch division of the district. See also section 17. The registration must be in the book assigned for the division-no book assigned for the village. (2) The appointed page of the book for a particular land also is necessary. See section 18. Section 23 requires tin accurate description of the boundaries of the property, including village or other division. Village is not absolutely necessary. Section 24.

[ SCHNEIDER J.-But see the form of the. Registrar-General and the Notaries Ordinance, section 29, sub-section 15 (a), si