( 471 )
these facts. It Ib argued* however, •that, inasmuch hs tlfe regis-tration of the deed in favour of Mendis Wijesefeera in June, 1905,defeated.* the defendant's .title under .the planting agreement,prescription could in law Chly run from that date. In my opinionibis argument is wholly untenable. The benefit of prior registrationis, by section 17-of the Ordinance No. 14 of 1891, given to ai^instru-4rnent only against a 44 deed, judgment, order, or other instrument.’'Such registration only affects titles based on the “ ifiatruments ”specified in section 16, and has nothing to do with titles acquiredotherwise than upon such instruments. The title bf prescriptionis acquired lg? acts of possession, and I fail to see 4hat the registrationof the deed by the owner against whom prescription is runningaffects the provisions of the Prescription Ordinance, unless it canbe said to be interruption of possession. Even the bringing of anabortive action has been authoritative^ held not to be an interruptionof possession (EmanU v. Sadappu1); and in my opinion .the registra-tion of a deed, which is still more unsubstantial, cannot be regardedas an interruption of a possession which is as a matter of factcontinuous. Prescription is a mode of acquisition independentof any documentary title which the possessor may at the sametime have, and although the one may be defeated by the operationof the Registration Ordinance, the other remains unaffected. Atthe argument I referred to the class of oases in which it has beenheld that, although the issue of a Fiscal's transfer divests the execu-tion-debtor’s title as from the date of sale, that result does notdefeat the new and independent title which the execution debtormay have acquired by adverse possession since .the sale. SeeSidambaram v. Punchi Banda.* The same considerations appearto me to apply much more strongly to such a case as the present,where there is no question of relation back.
I think the finding of the District Judge on the issue of prescriptionis right, and I would dismiss the appeal, with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
, Qoonaffleke
1 gS9T) 5 J/. L. R. SSL
* (isis) u n. l. £. m: