Vellaithamby V. The Attorney General

1957 Present: Weerasooriya, J., and Sinnetamby, J.

VELLAITHAMBY, Appellant, and THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL,
Respondent

S. C. 11-D. C. Batticaloa, 1,090/L

Irrigation Ordinance (Cap. 312)-Certificate of sale in favour of Grown-Nature of Crown's title-Sections'2 {1) (4), 66 (2), 68-Registration of Documents Ordinance (Cap. 101), s. 7 (1).

Where land sold under the Irrigation Ordinance for non-payment of irrigation rates due in respect of it is purchased by the Crown and a certificate is thereafter issued vesting title in the Crown, all previous titles to the land must, by virtue of sections 2 and 66 (2) of the Ordinance, be regarded as wholly extinguished, or suspended, by operation of law, and a new title is created in the Crown which is good against all persons. Accordingly, a subsequent transferee from the original owner of the land cannot claim title to it by priority of registration as against the Crown.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Batticaloa.

Walter Jayawardene, with A. S. Vanigasooriyar, for the plaintiff-appellant.

V. Tennekoon, Crown Counsel, with M. Fernando, Crown Counsel, for the defendant-respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

February 22, 1957. WEERASOORIYA, J.-

On the 18th June, 1945, two allotments of land called Akkarai Vyal were sold under the provisions of the Irrigation Ordinance (Cap. 312) for non-payment of irrigation rates due in respect of them and were purchased by the Crown, and on the 19th March, 1946, there were issued the two certificates of sale D2 and D3 vesting title to them in the Crown. Section 66 (2) of the Ordinance provides that on such a sale taking place a certificate substantially in the form given in Schedule II of the Ordinance shall be issued. The certificates D2 and D3 are substantially in that form, and it is clear from the provisions of section 66 (2), read with the terms of the relevant form of certificate, that on the issue of the certificates the said two allotments vested absolutely in the Crown free from all encumbrances. Although the certificates D2 and D3 were subsequently registered, purportedly under the provisions of the Registration of Documents Ordinance (Cap. 101), it was granted by learned Crown Counsel that the registration was not in accordance with the provisions of section 15 (1) (a) of that Ordinance and that they must, therefore, be deemed not to have been duly registered.

Notwithstanding the sale, the original owners purported to transfer the two lands for consideration by deed P1 of the 26th December, 1945, and the subsequent devolution of the title so disposed of appears from the deeds P2 to P6, under the last of which the plaintiff-appellant claims to have acquired title. All these deeds have been duly registered. P3 to P6 were executed subsequent to the issue of the certificates D2 and D3.

The case for the appellant is that the deeds in his chain of title prevail against the unregistered certificates D2 and D3 by virtue of section 7 (1) of the Registration of Documents Ordinance and it is on that basis that he filed this action against the Crown for declaration of title to the two lands and consequential relief. The learned District Judge dismissed the action with costs, and the present appeal has been filed against that order.

One of the questions canvassed at the trial and in appeal was whether the Crown is bound by the provisions of the Registration of Documents Ordinance. But this question, which does not appear to be covered by any previous authority, need not be considered as the appellants's claim must fail on another point of fundamental importance the decision of which, in my opinion, and also as conceded by learned counsel for the appellant, is fatal to the appeal.

 To deal with that point immediately, it is clear that the provisions of section 7 (1) of the Registration of Documents Ordinance would not come into operation unless the appellant shows

Click Here to Read the rest of this document