018-NLR-NLR-V-11-ENDRIS-v.-ADRIAN-APPU.pdf
( 62 )
1905.April 10.
Present: Mr. Justioe Moncreiff and Mr. Justice Grenier.
ENDBIS v. ADBIAN APPU.
D. C., Galle, 7,055.
Land acquisition case—Decision as to title to a portion of the land—Resjudicata as to title to the rest of the land.
A decisionby a competent judicial tribunal on the rights o(
parties to a proceeding under the Land AcquisitionOrdinance,
relating to a portion of a land, operates as res judicata between theparties as to the rights to . the rest of the land.
PPEAL by the plaintiff.
Domhor&t, K.C., for the plaintiff, appellant.
Bawa, for the defendant, respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
April 10, 1905, Moncreiff J.—
I am of the .same opinion" The learned Judge was bound by thedecision in No. 61, D. C., Galle, 2,383. It is true the decree in that .case was for a portion of the compensation in a land acquisitioncase; but the issue was between the defendant in this ease andElias and Babappu, the plaintiff’s mortgagors, and the questionwas whether the defendant or Babappu and Elias were entitled tothe compensation due in respect of the shares now in dispute. TheDistrict Court decided in favour of Babappu and Elias; that is tosay, it found that the shares of land belong to them and not to thedefendant; and the judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
The learned Judge admits that the law of case No. 351, D. C.Galle, 4,532 (Bonser C. J. and Lawrie J.), would be binding on himif the District Judge in the land acquisition case now put forwardhad given such a declaration of title in the same terms. Theobjection has no substance in it. The case turned on the question-of title now before us. The District Judge in No. 61, Galle, 2,383(Mr. Lee), said: “As between the first defendant (Andris Appu)and the fifth defendant (Babappu) the issue is a simple one. It isadmitted that in 1879 and 1880 the property was sold in execution ofa judgment obtained by fifth defendant and his brother against thefirst defendant and his brother and their father. In March, 1884,the purchasers obtained the usual order to transfer, but the transferwas not executed till February, 1892. The first defendant’s con-tention is that his father remained in possession notwithstandingthe sale. The evidence proves (and specially the evidence of fourthdefendant) that the purchasers went into possession and remainedin possession up to three or four years ago, when the first defendant’sfather returned to the village and again endeavoured to obtain
( 68 )
possession. Since then the first defendant (and Sis co-owner) andthe fifth defendant (and his co-purchaser) have been disputing overthe right to the land. The fifth defendant’s conveyance has rela-tion bach to the date of his purchase. He has therefore a goodtitle, and the first defendant has no title, and has failed in provingsuch possession since the sale as would give him a title by adversepossession. As regards, therefore, the issue between the firstdefendant and the fifth defendant, I find for the fifth defendant.”
The Supreme Court affirmed this judgment. That was a findingof title in favour of the plaintiff in this case as against the defendantin respect of the very question here at issue; and it was a findingwithout which, and upon which alone, the District Judge could dowhat the Land Acquisition Ordinance required him to do, namely,apportion the compensation. I am sorry that the parties have beenput to the trouble of this appealing on this point.
Grenier A.J.—
The main question on this appeal was whether the respondenthad established a title by prescription to certain shares in the landin question. It would appear that the appellant on September 2,1902, obtained a mortgage decree against Elias de Silva and Bab-appu de Silva in case No. 2,640, C. R., Galle, to recover a sum ofRs.~ 169.68 and costs. The appellant caused the Fiscal to seize thedebtor’s interests in the land, when the respondent claimed thesame. The claim was inquired into by the Court on April 30, 1903,and was allowed. The appellant has now brought this action for adeclaration that his judgment-debtors are entitled to the shares inquestion, and that they are liable to be sold in execution under hiswrit. The title of Elias de Silva and Babappu de Silva, appellant’smortgagors, was founded upon two Fiscal’s conveyances, No. 5,614dated May 5, 1890, and No. 6,391 dated February 15, 1892. Theappellant’s mortgagors purchased $ plus 1/24 plus 1/48 plus 1/102and 1/112 part of the soil and soil share trees of KumakandaAdarawatta, Elabodawatta alias Welabodawatta, Aswatta, and Pela-watta, all adjoining each other, and containing in extent 2 acres 2roods 26.4 perches, together with a 5 cubits thatched house and anincomplete house, in execution against the respondent, his father,and his brother. The defendant’s case is that, notwithstanding thesale in execution against him, he has been in possession of the landsince the date of the sale, and the plaintiff's judgment-debtorsnever possessed it. It is thus evident that the paper title being withthe plaintiff's judgment-debtors, it was for the defendant to showthat he has acquired a title by prescription to the shares irj, question.
It was submitted for the appellant in the Court below, and also inappeal, that not only had the defendant failed to establish title byprescription, but that he was estopped by the judgment and decreeof this Court in case No. 61, D. C., Galle, 2,383, dated January 19,
1905.April 10.
Moncbeifp,
J.
( 64 )
1905.1894, from asserting any right to the shares in question. A. portion
April 10 of this land was acquired by Government for the railway, andGrannEB there having been several claimants, amongst them the appellant’sA.J. judgment-debtors, the defendant, and his mother and brother, theGovernment Agent deposited the amount of compensation in Courtand made a reference under suit No. 2,383. In that suit it was heldby the District Judge on January 19, 1894, that the appellant’sjudgment-debtors were entitled to 1/24 plus 1/48 plus 1/222 partsof the compensation awarded in the case, and that the respondentwas not entitled to any share at all, and he was accordingly orderedto pay their costs. On an appeal taken by the respondent, thisCourt by its judgment dated October 2, 1894, affirmed the judg-ment of the Court below.
In my opinion the judgment and decree in suit No. 61, D. C.,Galle, 2,383, operate as res judicata. I am bound to followthe judgment of this Court in No. 351, D. C., Galle, 4,532, whereit was held on a state of facts similar to that present in this casethat the decree in a land acquisition case, where there were com-peting claims to the compensation, precluded the parties claimingfrom again raising the question as to their title to the land acquired.That judgment was by a Bench of two Judges, and was binding onthe District Judge, and should have been followed by him. It istrue that there was no final decree in case 2,383 declaratory oftitle; but that, in my opinion, is a mere technical irregularity.I find from the judgment of the District Judge in that case that hedeclared what the rights of the parties were V the fund in Courtafter a lengthy inquiry into title. He decided in fact the questionof title before declaring the shares to which the parties were entitled.
It was urged by the respondent’s counsel that his client hadacquired a title by prescription to the rest of the land, although hemight have lost all his rights by the judgment in 2,383 . to theparticular lot that was acquired by the Crown. The fallacy in thisargument is manifest. The respondent’s claim in case No. 2,383was based on his alleged right to certain shares in the whole landalthough the compensation that he asserted he was entitled to wasin respect of this particular lot. Such being the case I find that therespondent is clearly estopped from claiming these shares again,unless in the interval he has acquired a title by prescription. If thedate of his adverse possession was from January 19, 1894, whichwas the date of the judgment in the District Court in case No. 2,383,even then it is clear that he has not matured a title by prescription,because the present action was instituted on May 13, 1903, and therespondent has not had time to acquire a title by prescription. Thejudgment of the Court below must be set aside and judgmententered for plaintiff as claimed with costs.
Appeal allowed: judgment for plaintiff.