( 294 )
October 16. MOHIDIN v. PERERA.
D. C., Kandy, 12,925.
Compensation due under planting agreement — Sale of land to third party —Liability of vendee to pay the planter such compensation, though no parlyto such agreement.
S., having entered into a planting agreement With V. that, until thecompensation agreed upon for the planting was paid, S., V. shouldbe entitled to keep possession of the land, sold it to P. on 14thSeptember, 1895, while V. Was in possession of the part planted.
On 21st March, 1896, Y. mortgaged her interest in the land to M.,who, after obtaining judgment against him, bought at the Fiscal’s saleall her interest under the planting agreement.
Held, in an action brought by M. against P. for the compensation dueto V. under the planting agreement, that though the defendant was nota party to it, yet he Was bound by it, in that he bought the land withnotice of it.
rpHE facts of this case are as follows. One Sriwardane, being-L the owner of 12£ acres of land, gave 6 acres thereof on thewestern side within certain boundaries to Veerayi (a woman) tobe planted, on a notarial agreement dated 7th February, 1801,wherein it was specially provided that she had the right to possessthe 6 acres until the stipulated compensation was paid by theowner. This deed was registered on 1st December, 1893.Subsequently on the 14th September, 1895, Sriwardane sold the12^ acres to the defendant, while Veerayi was in possession ofthe part she had planted under the agreement with the defendant’svendor.
On the 21st March, 1896, Veerayi granted to the plaintiff aprimary mortgage of all her right, title, and interest in the 6 acresin question-. Sriwardane, being a holder of a decree for costs
( 295 )
against Veerayi, sued out a writ of execution in suit No. 160, C. B.fKandy, and caused her interest in the 6 acres to be sold in execu-tion on the 29th March, 1897, when one B. S. Perera became thepurchaser of the same.
Thereafter the plaintiff instituted the action No. 418 of theCourt of Requests of Kandy against Veerayi and B. S. Perera,the purchaser in execution, for the recovery of the mortgage debtdue by her, and obtained a decree iu his favour for Rs. 244,making her planter’s interest in the 6 acres' bound andexecutable; and at the sale held by the Fiscal, the plaintiff becamethe purchaser thereof on the 8th November, 1897, and obtained aFiscal’s conveyance for the same on the 13th October, 1898, thusbecoming entitled to all the right, title and interest of Veerayiin the 6 acres, to keep and retain possession of the said 6 acresuntil the value of the said plantations os agreed between Veerayiand Sriwardane was paid to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff now brought the present action against thedefendant, who had entered into possession of the 6 acres inquestion under Sriwardane without paying any compensation forthe plantation raised by Veerayi, for the recovery of Rs. 397.50,being the amount of the compensation due, and for a declarationthat plaintiff is entitled to have possession of the said 6 acresuntil payment of the said sum.
At the trial the following issues were agreed to between theparties: —
Whether the plaint disclosed any liability on the part ofthe defendant to pay the amount claimed.
Whether the defendant was affected by the mortgage decreein C. B., Kandy, No. 418, and whether he held a title free from themortgage dated 2lst March, 1896.
Whether the plaintiff was the purchaser of Veerayi’s right torecover the amount claimed.
Whether Veerayi planted the land in terms of the agreement.
If she did, what did the plantation consist of?
The District Judge dismissed the plaintiff’s action in thefollov. ing terms : —
“ The first issue I have to determine is whether the plaintdiscloses any liability on the part of the defendant to pay theamount claimed. I am of opinion it does not. The defendant isnot liable personally to pay the amount, because he is not a partyto the contract between Sriwardane and Veerayi, nor is he therepresentative of Sriwardane, who undertook to pay Veerayi. Theplaintiff asks for a personal judgment against the defendant, andfor possession until the amount claimed is paid. He has lost
( 296 )
1900.whatever right of retention he had. His action therefore -is only
October 16.for the debt, for which, as I have already said, the defendant is
not personally liable.”
The plaintiff appealed.
Bawa, for plaintiff appellant.
Van Langenberg, for respondent.
16th October, 1900. Bonser, C.J.—
This case must go back to have the issues which were raisedbetween the parties determined. The defendant purchased acertain land from the owner, which land had been the subject ofa planting agreement entered into by the owner with a personwho undertook to plant the land,—a planting agreement dulymade and executed before a notary, as required by law, andregistered. The defendant made the purchase with full knowledgeof the fact. The plaintiff is a person in whom it is alleged theinterest of the planter is now vested, and he sues the defendantto assert his right under that planting agreement. The DistrictJudge held that the defendant was not liable, because he was nota party to the planting agreement, nor was he the representativeof the owner who entered into the agreement, and he dismissedthe action. In this, I think, he was wrong, because the effect ofthat would be that defendant, who took the purchase with noticeof the planting agreement, would be able to repudiate it. Itseems to me, therefore, that the case must go back for furtherinquiry on the issues of fact raised.
MOHIDIN v. PEREEA