Garvin, J
MOHAMMED – Appellant
Versus
MOHAMAD et al. – Respondent
211-A. C. R. Jaffna, 18,464.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests, Jaffna.
Balasingham, for appellants. And Anandam, for respondents.
Present: Garvin J.
MOHAMMED v. MOHAMAD et al.
211-A. C. R. Jaffna, 18,464.
Sale-Grant
of dominium subject to the life interest of vendor -Validity- English law.
Under the law of Ceylon a conveyance by way of sale may be made subject to
the life interest of the vendor.
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests,
Jaffna.
Balasingham, for appellants. And Anandam, for respondents.
February 6, 1928. GARVIN J.-
The only question which arises upon this appeal is whether a valid life interest
in favour of the grantor had been reserved by deed No. 79 of March 28,1925. The
deed is, inform, a conveyance upon sale. It is stated in the premises, that in
consideration of a sum of Rs. 500, the receipt of which is acknowledged by the
vendor, he grants to the purchaser his undivided one-third share of a certain
allotment of land and " all his estate, right, title, interest, claim, and
demand whatsoever therein .... to have and to hold the said premises hereby
granted or intended so to be unto the purchaser and her aforewritten absolutely
and for ever, but subject to the life interest of the vendor in the said
premises."
It was successfully contended in the Court below that the words " subject to the
life interest of the vendor in the said premises " which appear in the habendum
could not in law be held to abridge the grant made in the premises.
This contention is based upon the rule of English law that if in a deed a
particular estate is expressed in the premises that estate may not be abridged
in the habendum.
Assistance and guidance of great value is derivable from the English law
relating to the interpretation of deeds, but the difficulty of applying those
rules of interpretation to instruments in Ceylon lies in the fact that they
relate to a system of conveyancing which has been evolved to give expression to
conceptions peculiar to the English law of real property to which our own law of
immovable property bears hardly any resemblance. It has become the practice of
conveyancers in Ceylon to adopt the forms and the language of English
conveyancing, and in consequence words or phrases often
appear in our deeds to which it
would be wrong to give the interpretation which would be given them if they
appeared in a deed ' drawn in England and dealing with real property situated
thereon.
Mohammed The general principle governing the interpretation of deeds is that
Mohamad the deed must be considered as a whole and effect given to the intention
of the party if by law it may. Now the phrase "estate, right, title, interest,
claims, and demand whatsoever " is generally employed by local notaries where
the intention is to vest the dominion. It clearly was the intention of the
grantor in this deed to vest the dominion in the purchaser but subject to his
life interest. I am aware of nothing in our law which, prohibits this document
being given what appears to be its ordinary and natural constructions, or to
prevent its being interpreted as the grant of the dominion subject to the life
interest of the vendor. For these reasons, I would set aside the order under
appeal and direct that judgment be entered for the plaintiff as pleaded for with
costs in both Courts.
Appeal allowed.