( 157 )
Present: Wood Renton J. and Grenier J.MOHAMMADU SALT v. ISA NATCHIA et al.
170—D. C. (Inty.) Kalutara, 4.517.
A deed which was registered in the wrong folio through thenegligence of the grantee was held to be void a* against a subsequentdeed registered in the proper folio.
ifJpHE facts appear from the judgment.
Sampayo, K.C., for the appellant.
van Langenberg (with him Balasingham), for the respondent; DeMel v. Fernando1 was ciw*d at the argument.
Cur. adv. vult.
December 4, 1911. Wood Renton J.—
The* plaintiff-respondent in this action claimed the partition ofthe land described in the plaint, allotting to himself a one-fourthshare by right of purchase on deed No. 4,991 dated March 27, 1910,and registered on March 30 in the same year. The added defendant-appellant intervened in the action, claiming to be entitled to thesame one-fourth share by right of purchase from the respondent-vendor on deed No. 9,071 dated February 17, 1910, and registeredon February 21, 1910. The learned District Judge held that thelands conveyed by the two deeds were identical. But he also heldthat the respondent’s deed, although later in date and in registration,was entitled to priority over the deed of the appellant, because thelatter deed had been registered in the wrong folio through thenegligence of the appellant himself. “ It appears, *' said the DistrictJudge, “ that the defendant’s deed was registered under a differentfolio than the one in which it would have been placed, if the name,extent, and boundaries had been the same as those appearing inthe plaintiff’s deed.” This finding is supported by the evidence,and the only point that we have here to decide is whether theDistrict Judge was right in law in holding, as he did, that the effectof the mistake was to deprive the appellant of the benefit of his priorregistration. In my opinion that question must be answered in theaffirmative. The view of the law taken by the District Judge isstrongly supported by the language of section 15 (1). section 16, and•section 17 of “ The Land Registration Ordinance, 1891 ” (No. 14 of1891). Section 15 (1) requires the Registrar to ^prepare and keepbooks “ for the registration therein of any deed which may be broughtto him for registration as hereinafter provided; allotting to eachhook some defined division of the province or district, so that every
i (1900) 4 N. L. R. 990.
( 158 )
1911. deed relating to lands situate therein may be registered therein insuch manner as to facilitate reference to all existing alienations orRbntq:n J. incumbrances affecting the same lands section 16 provides thatMohammaducategories of deeds which are enumerated in it “shall be.
Mali v. Isa registered in the branch office of the district in which such land orNatchia propevty is situate; that is to say, in the books mentioned in thepreceding sections and section 17 deprives of the benefit of regis-tration deeds which are not “ so registered, ’’ unless there has beenfraud or collusion in obtaining the rival deed, or in securing theprior registration.
There is a suggestion in the petition of appeal that the plaintiff-respondent has been guilty of fraud in the present case. But thereis no issue as To fraud, and the learned District Judge, while he wasobviously somewhat suspicious of the respondent’s proceedings, hasheld that there is no clear proof that he had, in fact, obtained hisdeed fraudulently. That being so, I do not think that it would befair to allow that point to be raised against the plaintiff-respondentnow. The case, therefore, depends on the construction of OrdinanceNo. 14 of 1891, the effect of which has just been stated. It seemsto me that the District Judge has interpreted the law correctly. Inview of his findings on the facts, particularly as to the appellant’snegligence, I think that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.
Grenier J.—I agree.
MOHAMMADU SALI v. ISA NATCHIA et al