( 348 )
BABASURIYA v. CHARLES et al.
D. C., Matcira, 192.
Conveyance of land—Validity of it, for want of description by metes andbounds—Evidence.
A conveyance is not invalid for want of description of land by metesand bounds. Its identification and limits are provable by parol evidence.
HE facts of this case appear in the judgment of the ChiefJustice.
Sampayo, for appellant.
Bawa, for respondent.
18th October, 1895. Bonseb, C.J.—
In this case the plaintiff seeks to recover possession fromthe first defendant of a piece of land. The first defendant statedthat he was merely a lessee—he cited his lessor, who wasaccordingly brought in and made second defendant in order toassert his title to the land.
The first defendant set up a claim to retain the land until theplaintiff had paid him the value of certain improvements which healleged he had made on the land. He would be entitled to thisif the improvements were really made. Evidence was gone into,which, as usual, was conflicting. The District Judge has foundthat the first defendant made no improvements, and I do not seehow we can disturb that finding.
The second defendant disputes the title of the plaintiff.He says the land originally belonged to him, and was seizedand sold by the Fiscal some eight years ago on a writ of executionagainst him, and purchased by the plaintiff. He contends thatinasmuch as the Fiscal’s transfer did not give a description of theland by metes and bounds the conveyance was invalid, and passednothing. Mr. Sampayo attempted to support that contention,and he boldly stated that it was law in this Colony that, unless aconveyance contained a full description of the property by metesand bounds, it was void. He admitted that in the case of wills itwas different—a demise was good without Buch description.He could not point out to us any special enactment of theLegislature of this Colony which laid down any such law aB this,nor could he refer us to any decision of this Court. He did referto the Registration Ordinance, but that Ordinance has nothing todo with the validity of conveyances.
( 349 )
It enacts that land specified in instruments 'which are 1896.registered are to be described in a particular manner. But 0etober 18‘non-registration does not make a deed void. This deed must°-J
be construed by the English Law of Evidence. The propositionasserted by Mr. Sampayo that oral evidence could never be used toidentify property included in a conveyance is absolutely withoutfoundation. It is difficult to conceive a case in which oralevidence will not be necessary even when the property has beenfully described by metes and bounds. Such evidence cannot beadmitted to contradict or vary a writing, but it is alwaysadmissible to explain a writing.
Mr. Taylor, in his book on Evidence, section 1,082, states:r“lt may be laid down as a broad and distinct rule of law that“ extrinsic evidence of every material fact which will enable the“ Court to ascertain the nature and qualities of the subject-matter“ of the instrument, or, in other words, to identify the persons and“ things to which the instrument refers, must of necessity be“ received.” Again, he says : “ If an estate be conveyed by the“designation of Blackacre, parol evidence must be admitted to“ show what property is known by that name.”
In the present case the conveyance was of a divided portionbelonging to the judgment-debtor of a certain garden which isdescribed. More than that, by reference to the plan which isattached to the deed it appears clearly wbat land was intendedto be conveyed. The divided portion is denoted by the letter C,and is stated to be the property of the judgment-debtor.
The appeal will be dismissed.
Withers, J.—I quite agree.
(• The defendant’s attack on plaintiff’s title on the ground ofmisdescription is a very disingenuous one, in my opinion.
BABASURIYA v. CHARLES et al