006-NLR-NLR-V-03-NONA-BABA-v.-NAMOHAMMY-et-al.pdf
( 12 )
1897.
August 20.
ETONA BABA v. NAMOHAMY et al.
D. C., Grille, 2,182.
Partition—Misconceived action—Questions appropriate to partitionproceedings—Title.
The primary object of partition proceedings is not to try anddetermine contested questions of title, and a contest as to titleshould not be made the subject of such proceedings. They arereally meant for those whose shares in the land are admitted, atleast to some extent.
TN this case the plaintiff sued the defendants for partition of"*■ certain, land. The defendants denied the plaintiffs titlealtogether. The District Judge, after evidence heard, dismissedthe action. On appeal by the plaintiff—
Alwis, for appellant.
Aserappa, for respondents.
20th August, 1897. Withers, J —
If there were no other grounds for supportirg this judgment—and I do' not say there are not—this is quite sufficient that thisaction for partition is an abuse of the Partition Ordinance.
This Court has constantly observed that a contest about titleshould not be made the subject of a suit appropriate to an inquiryof the kind.
The successful party if declared to be a co-owner with the losingparty can then initiate partition proceedings if so advised.
Partition proceedings are really meant for those whose sharesin the land are admitted at least to some extent.
The Court has of course to be satisfied with the titles of those,who claim to be shareholders, and contest as to amount or extentof shares, if it occurs, is incidental.
The primary object of partition proceedings is not to try anddetermine contested questions of title.
Affirmed with costs.