Paulis Singho v. William Singho
1962 Present: Basnayake, C.J., and H. N. G. Fernando, J.
PAULIS SINGHO and another, Appellants, andWILLIAM SINGHO, Respondent
S. G. 198 of 1959—D. G. Gampaha, 5975JLCo-cnonera—Building standing on the common property—Action by a co-owner fordeclaration of title to it—Maintainability.
A co-owner of a land cannob maintain an action for declaration of titleto a building standing on the common property.
BASNAYAKE, C.J.—Paulis Singho v. William Singho
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court, Gampaha.
H. W. Jaycwardene, Q.G., ■with D.R. P. Goonetillelce and L. C. Senevi-ratne, for Defendants-Appellants.
A. C. M. Uvais, for Plaintiff-Respondent.
March 16, 1962. Basnayake, C.J.—
The question that arises for decision on this appeal is whether a co-owner of a land can maintain an action for declaration of title to abuilding on the common property. The plaintiff claimed that he wasentitled to 1/20 share of a land called Medaweraniyewatta situated inthe village of Tittapattara and a tiled boutique built thereon by oneJames Appu his predecessor in title. The defendants claimed that JamesAppu’s father Belenis erected the building. That was the only matterin dispute at the trial, it being common ground that the plaintiff wasentitled to an undivided 1/20 share of the land. The learned DistrictJudge held that James built the tiled boutique and gave judgment forthe plaintiff.
It is contended by learned counsel for the defendants, who haveappealed from that decision, that a co-owner is not entitled to maintainan action such as that brought by the plaintiff in the instant case. Hesubmits that where a co-owner desires to put an end to the co-owner-ship the proper action is an action for partition.
Under our law there can bo no ownership of a house apart from theland on which it stands—Van Wezel v. Van Wezel1. That being so aco-owner cannot claim a declaration that he is the owner of a housestanding on co-owned land to the exclusion of all others, for that would'amount to a declaration that he is the exclusive owner of the land onwhich the house stands.
A building on common property accedes to the soil and becomes partof the common property quid quid inacdificatur solo, solo cedit. Theright of a builder is limited to a claim for compensation w'hich can bedetermined in an action for partition. The cases of De Silva v. Siyadoris a,Sopihamy v. Dias3, and Charles v. Juse Appu4, all support that view.The learned District Judge was wrong in giving judgment for the plaintiff.
We accordingly set aside his judgment and dismiss the plaintiff’saction. The appellant is entitled to costs both here and below.
H. N. G. Eeknan-do, J.—I agree.
Cur. adv. vult.
1 (1924) A. D. 417 at 419.* (1911) 14 N. L. R. 268.
J (1948) 50 N. L. R. 284.* (1956) 60 N. L. R. 474.
PAULIS SINGHO and another,Appellants, and WILLIAM SINGHO, Respondent