( 139 )
RODRIGO v. LIVERA.D. C., Negombo, 763.
Crown grant—Facts to be proved by grantee in an action rei vindicatio.
In an action rei vindicatio by a person deriving title from agrantee under the Crown, the plaintiff must prove some entry on,or exercise of right over, the land by his vendors “ in addition tothe bare fact of its being included in the Crown plan ” attached tothe grant.
'THE plaintiff claiming title to a parcel of land under a granteeof the Crown complained that the defendant had encroachedon a portion of the land. He sought to be declared entitled to theportion encroached upon and’to eject the defendant therefrom.The defendant claimed the portion in question by right of pre-scriptive possession for over thirty years. The District Judgeheld as follows:—“ The encroachment in question is within the“ boundary of the Crown grant to plaintiff's predecessors in title,“ and the onus is on defendant to show that he has acquired a“ better title by prescription, in spite of the total failure on plaintiff’s“ part to prove the alleged act of encroachment by defendant.”‘He further held, on the facts, that the defendant had satisfactorilyproved prescriptive possession as averred by him, and dismissedthe plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff appealed.
Wendt, for appellant.
Dorrihorst, for respondent.
given by the District Judge.
I am prepared to hold that the plaintiff ought to have proved. some entry on, or exercise of right over, the disputed piece of landby his vendors in addition to the bare fact of the land being includedin the Crown plan of 1864.
But there is no evidence that any of his predecessors in titleever had possession or enjoyment of the piece of land in dispute.
On the other hand, it is proved by plaintiff’s witnesses that thedefendant soon after his purchase cleared the land, planted it up,and put up a fence on the site of the old badawefciya.
The fence was put up, they say, some eight years ago.
Further, there is evidence that this fence of the old badawetiyahad been for many years recognized as the southern boundary atthe point of contact of the plaintiff’s .purchased property with thelittle piece in dispute.
RODRIGO v. LIVERA