1956  Present: Sinnetamby, J., and L. W. de Silva, A. J.

K. E. SEYED MOHAMED et al., Appellants, and
M. C. PERERA et al., Respondents

S. C. 313-D. C. Kandy, 2841/L

Evidence-Actio rei vindicatio-Boundaries of land in dispute-Deeds tendered in evidence without objection by opposing party-Evidentiary value of statements therein-Civil Procedure Code, s. 154-Evidence Ordinance, ss. 32, 91, 92.

To identify the promises in dispute in an action for declaration of title to immovable property, the Court may take into consideration statements of boundaries in title deeds of adjoining lands belonging to persons who are strangers to the action and who have not been called to give evidence. The evidence of such title deeds may become inadmissible only if objection to their production is taken in the court of first instance; they cannot be objected to for the first time in appeal.

 Peeris v. Savunhamy (1951) 54 N. L. R. 207 and Solomon v. William Singho (1952) 54 N. L. R. 512, not followed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Kandy.

C. Thiagalinqam, Q.C., with E. G. Wikramanayake, Q.C. T. A. Dunuwila, and V. Arulambalarn, for the plaintiffs-appellants.

H. W. Jayewardene, Q.C., with L. G. Weeramantry and P. Ranasinghe, for the defendants-respondents.

Cur. adv. vult.

October 10, 1956. SINNETAMBY, J.-

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for declaration of title to premises bearing Assessment Nos. 60, 62 and 64, Kandy Road, Gampola, for an -order of ejectment against the defendants and for damages. At the hearing learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants stated that he did not ask for damages as no income could have been derived from the property in view of a closing order that had been issued by the Gampola. Magistrate at the instance of the Urban Council. The property in dispute is depicted in plan "X" and Dl made by a Commissioner appointed by the Court at the instance of plaintiffs and defendants respectively.

Defendants also claimed the same land on different deeds. The learned District Judge held that plaintiffs' title deeds refer to another land and dismissed the action with costs. The appeal is against this finding.

Plaintiffs based their title on two deeds bearing Nos. 3916 (P1) dated 15/7/80 and 578 (P2) dated 7/11/79. The transferee on those deeds is Cader Ibrahim Rawther a predecessor in title of the plaintiffs. Document P1 establishes the manner in which title devolved on the plaintiffs. it is not disputed that whatever Cader Ibrahim got on these deeds devolved on the plaintiffs. Defendants have produced deeds which trace the title of plaintiffs title still further back. One Meedin Kandu and D. M. Sulaiman Lebbe were the original owners of the land described in P1 and P2. On a Fiscal's Conveyance D2 of 1868 the land was sold and purchased by two persons, viz., Seyadu Assen Lebbe and A. M. or H. M. Sulaiman Lebbe. The Fiscal's Conveyance refers to a plan which has not been produced. These two gentlemen by deed No. 571 of 24/8/68 D 11 transferred to Omar Lebbe Sinna Lebbe one of the two houses to-wards the south conveyed to them by D2, presumably the one belonging to Sulaiman Lebbe as the northern boundary is described in the deed as the house of Seyadu Assen Lebbe." This deed does not refer to a plan but plaintiffs had produced plans P3 and P4 which they say were with their title deeds. P3 bears an endorsement by a notary certifying that a house and land belonging to Sulaiman Lebbe has been transferred by Deed No. 571. This plan on the face of it does not show that it has been made by a surveyor. By deed D 10 Sinna Lebbe transferred to Simeon Meedin on 27/4/75. This deed expressly refers to Plan P4. simeon Meedin by deed P1 transferred to 1st and 3rd plaintiffs' grandfather Cader Ibrahim Rawther. The other share conveyed by Fiscal's

Conveyance D2, which was the northern portion, was by deed P2 conveyed to the same Cader Ibrahim Ra