( 330 )
MENIK ETTANA el al. v. ALLIS APPU.
C. R., Avimwella, 1,061.
Registration of deeds—-Preference by earlier registration—Ordinance No. 14of 1891, s. 17—Deed of sale by husband to wife—Proof of valuableconsideration—Matrimonial Rights Ordinance, 1876, s. 19.
A having, by deed of 27th August, 1888, sold a land to T, executedon 7th December, 1889, a deed of sale transferring the same landto his own wife. The latter deed was registered on 31st December,1889, and the former on 30th June, 1890.
In an action brought by A’s widow against T for recoveringpossession of the land—Held, that as all movable property to whicha woman is entitled during her marriage is by Ordinance No. 15 of1876, section 19, vested absolutely in her husband, the money whichwas mentioned in the deed of 7th December, 1889, as having beenpaid to A by his wife must be taken to be his own money, and thetransfer to her to be without consideration.
HIS was an action to recover possession of an undivided
share of the field called Delgahakumbura, which the firstplaintiff alleged she had purchased from her husband, TelenisAppuhamy. The deed in her favour was dated 9th December,1889, and was registered on the 31st of the same month. Theother plaintiffs were her children.
The defendant claimed title also from Thelenis Appuhamyunder a deed of sale dated 27th August, 1888, but registered on30th June, 1890.
The plaintiffs did not prove payment of valuable considerationfor the deed of sale in favour of the first plaintiff, which recitedthat Thelenis Appu, “ for and in consideration of Rs. 200 ” paidto him by Menik Ettana, sold and transferred the land to her.
The Commissioner decided that the first plaintiff’s deed shouldhave preference, and that her title to the field was completed byprescriptive possession. He rejected the evidence of possessionled by the defendant.
H. J. C. Per era appeared for defendant.
Dornhorst, for plaintiff, respondent.
22nd August, 1899. Lawbie, A.C.J.—
The plaintiff’s subsequent deed should get priority only if itwas for valuable consideration. It was a transfer by a husbandto a wife. They were, I understand, low-country Sinhalese.Certainly the name of the plaintiff’s husband, Telenis, is that ofa low-countryman.
( 331 )
By the Ordinance of 1876 all movable property to which amarried woman is entitled during her marriage vests absolutelyin her husband, so that presumably the money handed by theplaintiff to her husband Telenis as the consideration for thetransfer was his own money. In other words, the transfer to herwas not for valuable consideration. The defendant is in posses-sion, and the plaintiff has not proved right to the land by virtueof a later transfer for valuable consideration registered prior tothe defendant’s earlier deed.
I dismiss the action.