( 283 )
Present : De Sampayo and Schneider JJ.
APPUHAMY v. WIRASINGRE.
272—D. C. Tangalla, 1,880.
Registration—Right folio—Entry in folio “ for similar land, see A 51/126.*'
The foundation of defendant's deed D 1 was D. This Latterdeed (D) was registered in A vol. 24, folio 108. An entry at thofoot of the folio stated that the registration was carried over toA 51/126, from which, again, by a similar entry, it was carried overto A 141/312, On the last folio there was no entry indicatingany carrying forward. D 1 was registered in A 130/87, as D. 2,which was a mortgage granted by the transferor in D 1, was registeredthere; this mortgage was discharged at the execution of D 1. OnA 130/87, the words “ brought forward from " were crossed over,and in red ink there were inserted the words for the same land seeA 101/114, ” and another entry “ for a similar land see A 51/126. ”On A 101/114 was registered a ' mortgage of the land, and againstit in the "remarks*' column were the words "see A 24/108, wherethe title deed has been registered. " At the bottom of the folioit was stated " for the same land sec A 130/87 and 101/114. "
Held, that D 1 was registered in the right folio.
1 (1899) 4 N. L. R. 28$.
( 284 )
fjpHE-facts appear from the judgment.
Samaraiviokreme, for second defendant, appellant.
E. W. Jayawardene, for plaintiff, respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
February 24, 1922. Schneideb J.—
The only question arising on this appeal is whether deed No. 1,277(D 1), upon which the appellant claims title and which is registeredin A vol. 130, folio 87, is registered in the right folio, so that itacquires priority by virtue of that registration.
Admittedly, the original registration of certain deeds dealingwith the land commences in A vol. 24, folio 108. An entry atthe foot of this folio states that the registration had been carriedover to Avol. 51,folio 126, fromwhich, again bya similar
entry, it is carried over to A vol. 141, folio 312. On this last foliothereis no entry indicatingany carryingforward.Butthose
registrations are connected by certain cross-references, which 1shalldescribe presently withA vol. 130,folio 87.Upon an
examination of the particularsgiven on thedeeds intheselater
registrations, the reason is to be found why they are not connectedwith the earlier registrations by an entry indicating a continuationof the one set of registrations with the other. In the latter set ofdeeds there is a variation in the extent, and also in the descriptionof one orother ofthe boundaries. The extent is larger.The
Registrar of Lands,in whose officethese registrationshadbeen
made, wascalled atthe instance ofthe District Judge,andgave
evidence. He spoke of the registrations in volumes 101 and 130as “new registrations." The references in these volumes to theearlier set of registrations, he stated, had been made because a simi-larity in the lands had been noticed at the office and because thelandswere not identical. The object ofthe referenceswas,
he said, to help searchers by giving as full information as possible.Upon these facts the learned District Judge held that the appellant'sdeed was not registered in the right folio, and dismissed his claim.
I do not agree with the learned District Judge. This case isentirely governed by the reasoning in Ramasamy Chetty v. Martkkar 1which- was cited to him. In that case this Court held that'where a difference of folio in the registration was due to an alter-ation in the description of the land as the result of its partition, asregards the effect of registration, the requirements of the Ordinancehad been satisfied, inasmuch as the. later folio contained suchreference as was necessary to identify the land with the originalregistration. It appears to me that the references in the two setsof registrations in this case are ample to show their connection.In A vol. 24, folio 108, is registered deed No. 9,440 (D), which
1 (1915) IS N. L. R. SOS.
( 285 )
Is tiie foundation of the title of the transferor in deed No. 1*277(Dl). In D 1 it is expressly set out that the title is derived by (D).
The boundaries are identical. The prior registration stated in
deed D 1 is “ A vd. 180* folio 87.” The reason for tins appears App&emy
to have been that deed D 2. a mortgage granted by the transform
in D 1, is registered there* and this mortgage was discharged at
tiie execution of D 1. On this folio there are two references to
previous registration. At the place where the reference to the
previous registration would be inserted ordinarily* the printed
words " brought forward from ” are crossed over* and in red ink
there are inserted the words ” for the same land see A vol. 101,
folio lid.” The other reference-is near this* and is “ for a similar
land see A 51/126.”
In vol. 101, folio 114* is registered a mortgage* and ' againstit in the ” remarks ” column are the words “ see A 24/106* where thetitle deed has been registered.” At the bottom of the folio* theprinted column giving particulars of the carrying forward of theregistration is left blank, but over it is inserted 44 for the sameland see A 130/87 ” and “ see A 101/114 ” in two places.
These references conduct the searcher from the one set of theregistrations to the other, whether he begins with the one set orwith the other, and also establish the identity of the land. Whatbetter information can be wanted than are given in these references ?
In its own language what the Ordinance requires is that every deedrelating to lands should be registered “so as to facilitate reference,to all existing .alienations or incumbrances' affecting the sameland.,”
I would, therefore* hold that D 1 has been registered in the rightfolio* and that the plaintiff is not entitled to a mortgage decree inrespect of the land claimed by the appellant. So much of thedecree as directs the land to be sold is set aside. The appellantwill have his costs of this appeal and of the lower Court paid bythe plaintiff.
I wish to add that I notice from the Judge's notes that theargument in the lower Court proceeded upon the assumption thatthe Land Registration Ordinance* 1907* No. 8 of 1907, was in force.
This is not correct.- That Ordinance has not been proclaimed upto date* and has therefore not come into operation.
Db Sampayo J.—Agreed.
APPUHAMY v. WIRASINGHE