1961 Present : Sansoni, J., and Tambiah, J.

H. N. LOGUS,

Appellant, and P. H. LAWRENCE, Respondent

S. C. 253/59-D. C. Colombo, 8391/L

Deed relating to land-Registration in a new folio-Cross-references-Prescribed form must be strictly followed-Negligence of Registrar-Effect on priority of registration-Registration of Documents Ordinance (No. 14 of 1936). ss. 7 (1), 15 (1), 16, 49-Registration of Documents Regulations (Vol. 1 of Subsidiary Legislation, p. 547), s. 13 (3).

Where a new folio was opened for the purpose of registering a deed in respect of land the boundaries of which were exactly the same as those described in a registration in the previous folio, but the extent was stated differently -

Held, that when the Registrar opens a new folio for registering an instrument in terms of section 15 (I) of the Registration of Documents Ordinance read with section 13 (3) of the Registration of Documents Regulations, the cross-references made by him connecting the new folio with the earlier one must conform strictly to the prescribed form.

Held further, that where a deed is registered in the wrong folio on account of the negligence of either the Registrar or one of the parties, the document is deprived of the priority conferred on it by section 7 of the Registration of Documents Ordinance.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Colombo.

S. W. Jayasuriya. with N. R. D. Abeysinghe, for the 1st Defendant-Appellant

F. A. Abeywardene, with 6. P. S. de Silva, for the Plaintiff-Respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

April 26, 1961. TAMBIAH, J.-

This is an action by the plaintiff-respondent for a declaration of title to 5/6 share of Lot G in Plan X. He claimed title to the land by deed P 2, dated 1. 6. 54. By this deed, five of the vendors transferred to the plaintiff the shares that would be allotted to them in the final partition decree in case No. D.C. 6459/P. The first defendant also claimed title to this land from the same source by deeds 1D1 and 1D2, dated 17. 7. 55. The only point of contest between the parties was whether the deeds 1D1 and 1D2 prevailed over the deed P2 by virtue of prior registration.

At the trial, it was common ground that the earliest deed relating to this land called Kadurugahawatte was registered in folio 12/61, marked P3. This folio has been connected by a series of cross -references to folios P3a to P3h. At the end of P3h, there is no entry to show that it is

continued or carried on any further. In 1920, a new folio, Volume 131, folio 106, marked P5, has been opened for the same land with the registration of a deed No. 6753 of 6th August 1920, which set out esaetly the same boundaries of the land which is the subject-matter of this action, but the extent of which is stated differently. The plaintiff's deed, P2, is restored, in folio P5a which is a continuation of folio P5. There is no connection between P5a and P3h (278/156). Thus, it is clear that the plaintiff's deed, P2, is not duly registered.

In 1930, another folio, Volume 289, P 147 (P4), has been opened for this land with the boundaries and extent exactly as in P5 but with no connection to the latter. The 1st defendant's deed is registered in folio P 4.

In P 4 (C 289/147), an endorsement has been made by the Registrar on 12. 6. 50, as follows :-

" Notary quotes the land registered in 278/156 as the entire land of this. "

In P3h (278/156), there is a similar endorsement made on the same day -which reads thus :-

" Notary quotes this as the entire land of this land in C 289/147. "

It was submitted on the appellant's behalf that these endorsements are sufficient cross-references as required by the Registration of Documents Ordinance, (No. 14 of 1930), and that, therefore, the defendant's deeds were duly registered. It is the contention of the counsel for the respondents that the proper form of registration has not been followed, and therefore, the defendant's deed has not be