Sumangala Thero V. Caledonian Tea And Rubber Estates Co., Ltd.,

1931 Present: Lyall Grant and Drieberg JJ.

SUMANGALA THERO v. CALEDONIAN TEA AND
RUBBER ESTATES CO., LTD.

12-(Inty.) D. C. Kandy, 36,064.

Registration-Deed of lease-Agreement to renew lease-Notice-Trusts Ordinance, No. 9 of 1917, s. 93.

Where a person acquires property with respect to which there is an existing lease, which has been registered, and where the deed of lease contained a provision for the renewal of the lease for a further
term,-

Held, that the registration of the deed constituted sufficient notice to the purchaser of the agreement for renewal.

THIS was an action for declaration of title to a half-share of laud called Nitulmulahena.

One Dingiri Banda, by lease D1 of 1894, leased, for 30 years, the land in dispute in this case (inter alia) to one Dickinson, whose rights ultimately devolved by various assignments on the defendant company.

By D1 Dingiri Banda undertook to grant, at the expiration of the term, a renewal of the lease for the same term or to sell the leased lands to the lessee on the expiration of the lease, or on the lessor's minor son Tikiri Banda attaining majority.

The lease D1 was duly registered.

The defendant company in 1919 purported to purchase the entirety of the land in dispute from one M. W. Loku Banda, on the footing that Tikiri Banda, already referred to, was the only heir of the original lessor, Dingiri Banda.

The plaintiff, alleging that Dingiri Banda had another son besides Tikiri Banda and claiming title through him, purported to purchase a one-half share of the land in 1927.

The plaintiff then instituted this action for declaration of title to a half share of the land against the defendant company. The defendant company filed answer denying the existence of any son of Dingiri Banda other than Tikiri Banda and denying the plaintiff's title to any share of the land, and prayed for the dismissal of the plaintiff's action. It further prayed, in reconvention, that in the event of the plaintiff being declared entitled to any share of the land in dispute, the plaintiff be ordered to execute a lease of such share in favour of the defendant company in terms of the covenant for renewal, contained in D1, granted by plaintiff's predecessor in title. At the trial the defendant company conceded the plaintiff's title to half share of the land, and the District Judge allowed the defendant company's prayer in reconvention and ordered the plaintiff to execute a lease of his half share in favour of the defendant company in terms of D1.

The plaintiff appealed.

H. V. Perera, for the plaintiff, appellant.-The option contained in Dl is vague, and it is not clear who is to exercise the option.

The agreement for renewal or sale is not enforceable by the defendant company against the plaintiff. The defendant company cannot claim the benefit of section 93 of the Trusts Ordinance, 1917, as, though D1 was registered, the entry in the register does not amount to notice of the covenant for renewal or conveyance at the termination of the lease.

[DRIEBERG J. referred to Suwaris Silva v. Omerihamy 1[11 Cey. Law Rec. 50.].]

The entry in the register in the case referred to specifically mentioned the agreement to sell and therefore there was full notice of the agreement. In the present case, no mention is made in the register of any covenant for renewal or conveyance. When the company purported to purchase the entirety of the land in 1919, it must be taken to have exercised its option under D1 once and for all, and it cannot now ask for a lease of the remaining half share which it finds it has not purchased. An option cannot be exercised piecemeal.

Further, if the defendant was asking in reconvention for specific performance, it should have specifically alleged and proved notice There has been no allegation and no evidence of notice.

The lease D1 would have expired in 1924 and it is now t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document