Back
DHARMADASA v. SACHCHOHAMY et al.
NLR46V568
1945 Present: Soertsz
A.C.J. and Canekeratne J.
DHARMADASA, Appellant, and SACHCHOHAMY et al., Respondents.
33-D. C. Tangalla, 5,037.
Contract-New contract
superseding a previous contract-Intention to supersede. should be clearly
manifested.
A lessee who obtained an option to acquire the portion of land leased by the
lessor at the end of a term of years if he observed certain conditions agreed to
sell a half share of the land conveyed to him to D. for a consideration. Five
years later the lessee assigned a half share of the leasehold interest to D. for
a sum of Rs. 150. Some years later D. paid the consideration due under the
agreement.
Held, that, there was no evidence to show that the assignment was. accepted in
satisfaction of the right to purchase a half share.
APPEAL
from a judgment of the District Judge of
Tangalla.
H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him Vernon Wijetunge), for the plaintiff,
appellant.
G. V. Ranawake (with him H. A. Koattegode), for the first defendant,
respondent.
E. B. Wikramanayake, for the third and fourth defendants, respondents.
Cur. adv. vult.
November 23, 1945. CANEKERATNE
J.-
Towards the end of 1931 the Crown was taking steps to lease land on certain
terms to villagers in Maha Belane Village for conversion to paddy fields, &c,
for periods of five years: an option to purchase the land at the end of a period
of years was conferred on the lessee; such a lease is termed a " conversion
lease ". It appears that one P. Deonis made apparently about January 19, 1932, a
successful application for a " conversion lease " for lot 4 BN; Deonis paid the
rent for the first year, Rs. 20.95, about February 17, 1932, and then by deed P
1 (dated June 14, 1932) agreed to sell an undivided half-share of the lot to the
plaintiff after he had obtained the Crown grant; the plaintiff agreed to pay
half the rent and half the amount required to clear and asweddumize the land and
Deonis agreed to deliver a half-share of the income to him.
By indenture 1D1 (dated October 4 and 12, 1932) the Crown leased the lot 4 BN to
P. Deonis for a period of five years commencing from January 19, 1932, on an
annual rental of Rs. 20.95; the lessee had the option of purchasing this lot at
the end of five years or of the extended period if the land had been
asweddumized and cultivated to the satisfaction of the Assistant Government
Agent; the period of the lease was extended in 1936 or 1937 for a further five
years.
About August, 1935, Deonis agreed to give a half-share of his leasehold interest
to the plaintiff; he applied for and obtained on September 26, 1935, the
lessor's consent for assigning a half-share of his interest; by indenture P 2
(dated February 17, 1936) Deonis assigned to the plaintiff
an undivided half-share towards
the eastern side of lot 4 BN for a sum of .Rs, 150. After this date the
plaintiff was in possession of the eastern portion; Deonis of the western
portion during his lifetime.
About November, 1941, Deonis died intestate and unmarried; the persons who
became entitled to the property left by him were his two sisters, the first and
second defendants, and the children of a deceased sister, third and fourth
defendants. In 1945 a Crown Grant was issued in favour of the plaintiff, the
first, second, third and fourth defendants: a half-share was conveyed to the
plaintiff, and undivided 1/6 share to each of the first and second defendants
and an undivided 1/12 share to each of the third and fourth defendants; the
half-share, according to the plaintiff, was granted to him as he was in the
position of a lessee and had observed the conditions of the lease.
In this action the plaintiff claimed that in terms of P 1 the defendants were
bound to convey their undivided half-share to the plaintiff; separate answers
containing substantially the same averments were filed by the first defendant,
by the second defendant, and by the third and fo
