L. IV. DE SILVA, A. J.—Lucihamy v. Ciciliyanahamy
Present:Basnayake, C.J., and L. W. de Silva, A.J.
DONA LUCIHAMY el al., Appellants, and CICILIYANAHAMYel al., Respondents- •
S. C. 225—D. G. Gampaha, 4,222 P
Civil Procedure Code—Section 187—Requisites of a judgment—Partition action—-Failure of Court Jo examine title of each party—Juffccl on decree.
Bare answers, without reasons, to issues or points of contest raised in a trialare not a compliance with the requirements of section 1S7 of the Civil ProcedureCode.
Failure to examine tho titlo of each party in a partition action vitiates thedecree if it has prejudiced the substantial rights of the parties.
j^^OPPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Gampalia.
Sir Laiila Rajapalcse, Q.G., with A. TP. IP. Goonewardena, for the 1st,and 3rd to 6th defendants-appellants.
G. D. S. Siriivardene, with G. D. G. Weerasinghe, for the plaintiff-respondent. 11
11. Wdnigat unget, with A. Kagendra, for the 7th to 11thdefendants-respondents.
Cur. ad.o. vult.
September 20, 1957. L. W. de Silva, A.J.—.
The plaintiff instituted this action for the partition of a land calledDawatagahaivatte described in the plaint and depicted as lots A and IBin the plan No. 24 marked X, made for this action. She alleged that theonly other owners were the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants. The 1st, 3rd,4th, 5tli, and 6th defendants, who are the appellants, filed answer allegingthat the land depicted in the plan marked X was not Dawatagaliawatte
L. V. DE SILVA, A.J.—Lucihamy v. CiciliyanaAamy
but a portion of Hedawakagahawattein which the plaintiff had no interest.The appellants further contended that the original owner Juseappuowned both lands Hedawakagahawatte and Dawatagahawatte whichadjoin each other. The appellants denied the devolution of title pleadedin the plaint and relied on a separate title according to which they claimedto be the sole owners of Hedawakagahawatte. They claimed all theimprovements and prayed for a dismissal of the action. The 7th to the• 11th defendants claimed an exclusion of lot 33 as a part of a paddy fieldbelonging to them. Theyc-laimed no interests in lot A. The appellantsopposed their claim to lot B. After trial, the learned District Judgeheld that the land in suit is Dawatagahawatte and not Hedawakagaha-wattc and entered an interlocutory decree for a partition of lot A on thebasis of the shares stated in the plaint. Dot B was excluded.
. The learned District Judge lias failed to consider the important pointraised by the appellants that Hedawakagahawatte is in two portions.According to them, the southern portion is the corpus in suit as depictedin the plan X, and the land adjoining the corpus on the south is Dawata-gahawatte. In other words, the appellants maintained that the plaintiffhas sought a partition of a portion of Hedawakagahawatte by callingit Dawatagahawatte. If the appellants’ contention is correct, the
' northern boundary in PI, which is stated to be Hedawakagahawatte,appears to be explained. The learned District Judge’s finding thatDawatagahawatte is not the same as Hedawakagahawatte does not solvethe pxoblem of the identity of the two lands. The only other deeds towhich reference is made in the judgment are P2 and P9. There is noreference at all to the appellants’ title deeds or the boundaries statedtherein. The judgment refers to certain oral evidence without relatingit to the documents on the question of the identity of the corpus. ’
According to the plaintiff, Joramanu is said to have sold his interestsalong with the 1st defendant’s brothers to the 3rd defendant appellant.No title deeds were produced by the plaintiff for the sale of these shares.
If the plaintiff admits that this title was conveyed on 1D11 of 1931 and1D13 of 1941, as she appears to do (for there is no other basis for admit tinga title in the 3rd defendant-appellant) she must account for the des-cription of the land Hedawakagahawatte apjxearing in those deeds whichshould have no place in the devolution of title relied on by her. In view'of the order we have decided to make, it is unnecessary to consider thesematters in greater detail.' '.
No reasons at all have been given in the judgment for the exclusion oflot B. -There were two issues relating to this portion^
Is lot B in plan X a part of the land called Wetefceyagahakumbura ■
alias Millagahakumbura belonging to the 7th to the '11th
. Need not be answered.
If so," should lot B be excluded ?—■'
Dot B shoxild be excluded. .
It is not possible to answer the 8th issue ’without'answering the 7th.
L. W. DB SILVA, A.J.—Lucihainy v Ciciliyanahamy
There were 12 issues raised in this case. Some of them do not bring outthe real points of contest. The learned District Judge has stated in hisjudgment: " All'the issues that have been raised can be "crystallised inthis one contest that is, whether the land in suit is Dawatagahawat-te •" or Hedawakngaliawatte. In the result, the evidence germane to each-issue has not been reviewed or discussed. No reasons precede or followthe answers which are mostly “ yes ” or “no” or “ does not arise. ”,Such a record has not disposed of the matters which the Court had todecide. ■ Bare answers to issues or points of contest—whatever may bothe name given to them—are insufficient unless all matters which arisefor decision under each head are examined. Section 187 of the CivilProcedure Code (Cap. SG) is in the following terms :—'
“ The judgment shall contain a concise statement of the case, thepoints for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for suchdecision. ”.
The judgment of the trial court docs not conform to these requisites..
The appellants' made specific claims to the improvements on lot A.Some of these were not counter-claimed by other parties, but the judgmentallots some of the admitted improvements in common without reasonsbeing given. Learned counsel for the respondents so conceded at thehearing of this appeal.-
We are of the opinion that the failure of the trial judge to examine thetitle of each party has prejudiced the substantial rights of the parties.We accordingly order a new trial. Wc allow the appeal by setting asidethe judgment and decree of the District Court. Bach party must bearthe costs both here and in the court below.
Bassayake, C.J.—I agree.
DONA LUCIHAMY et al., Appellants, and CICILIYANAHAMY et al., Respondents