( 160 )
DE SILVA v. HARMANIS et al.
C, B., Gaik, 3,172.
House buiU by one on another's land—Ownership—Right to compensation—Right of owner of soil.
The builder of a house on another man’s land does not acquire asaleable right to the house, but the house becomes the property ofthe owner of the soil.
Between the owner and the builder there may exist equities,such as a right to compensation, &c., but the ownership of a build-ing cannot ordinarily be in one man, and that of the soil on whichit stands be in another man.
nrms was an action under section 247 of the Civil ProcedureCode to have a house declared the property of a claimantin execution and released from seizure. The evidence showedthat the plaintiff (claimant) was entitled to an undivided half ofthe land on which the house stood, but that the house was notbuilt by him. The Court below held that the plaintiff was notentitled to the house, and dismissed his claim with costs. Heappealed.
Seneviratna, for appellant.
Sampayo, for respondent.
7th May, 1895. Lawbte, J.—
The parties seem to be agreed that by the law of Ceylon thebuilder of a house on another man’s land at once acquires a saleableright to that house.
That, however, is not the law. A house becomes the propertyof the owners of the soil on which it is built* Between the owners'and the builders there may exist equities, such as a right to com-pensation, &c., but the ownership of a building cannot (ip theordinary case) be in another.
If such a division of property can be created by contract, itcertainly was not created and did not exist here. The plaintiff,it is admitted, is the owner of an undivided half of the land onwhich the house stands. The house was seized in execution againsta man residing in it. The plaintiff claimed before the Fiscal. Theclaim was disallowed, and then he brought this action under section247 to have it established that he had right to the house “ by right“ of construction about five years ago.”
The learned Commissioner holds, I daresay rightly, that theplaintiff did not build the house, and that the house is an oldhouse. If it be that the plaintiff has right to an undivided half
( 161 )
of it, it does not appear to whom the other half of the land belongs,bnt with the interest of the unknown owner the Court has nownothing to do.
I set aside the judgment, and find that the plaintiff is entitledto an undivided one-half of the land described in the plaint, includingthe house standing thereon.
Success has been divided. As he originally put it, the plaintiff’sclaim rested on a wrong ground. No costs.
DE SILVA v. HARMANIS et al