Kasluriaracd v. Pint
Present: Basnayake, €.J., and Sansoni, J.KAS'1'U-K.TA~R.AfKTT and another, Appellants, and PINT and others,
S. C. 330—D. G. Kegaile, 8,463
Partition action—Paravoni pangnwa—Action instituted by nilakara-ya—Consent ofrand a lord—Jurisdiction of Court to entertain the action—Validity of thepartition decree.
The partition under the repealed Partition Ordinance of a paraveni panguwais not valid even where the ninda proprietor is a consenting party to theproceedings. In such a case the partition decree is a nullity.
BASNATTAKE, C.J.—KasCuriaracci v. JPini
^^-PPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Kegalle.
N.E. Weerasooria, Q.O., "with Kingsley Serai, fear Plaintlffs-Appellants.
B. Gunaratne, for 1st, 3rd. 4th and 5th Defendants-Respondents.
July 17, 1958. Basnayak.e, C.J.—
The question that arises for decision on this appeal is whether thepartition under the repealed Partition Ordinance of a paraveni land isvalid in a case where the proprietor of a nindagama or viharagama is alsoa consenting party to the proceedings.
It has been held in the case of Appuhamy et al. v. Menike et al., 1 by aBench of three Judges of this Court, that a paraveni panguwa cannot bethe subject of a partition action under the repealed Partition Ordinance.In that case the proprietors of the nindagama intervened and disputedthe right of the plaintiff nilakaraya to institute a partition action,.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks to differentiate that case fromthe one under consideration on the ground that the ninda proprietor wasa consenting party in the case on which he bases his claim.
It is settled law that where a Court has no jurisdiction to entertain anaction parties cannot by consent confer jurisdiction on it. The learnedDistrict Judge is therefore right in holding that the partition decree isa nullity.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Sa^soui, J.—I agree.
Appeal dismissed. ■
1 (1917) 19 2#. L. R. 361.