( 410 )
Present : Bertram C.J. and Ennis J.
SALMAN v. OBIAS.
166—D. C. Oalle, U,519.
Registration—Deedexecuted or fastconsideration—Donation—Priority.
The term “ valuable consideration" in section 17 of the BegistrationOrdinance, 1891, must be interpreted according to English law.A past .consideration is no consideration at all under the Englishlaw, unless it'was moved by a previous request, or unless it was renderedunder such circumstances that a request is implied.
The registration of a deed of conveyance for which the consider-ation was a past consideration does not give it priority over anearlier unregistered deed.
fJ*HE facts appear from the judgment.
Bartholomeusz, for the appellant.
A. St. V. Jayawardene, for the respondents.
Cur. adv. vuIt.
July 29, 1918. Bebtbam C.J.—
The question here is a question as to the priority of two deeds,
. one a deed of gift, which was not registered, and the other whichpurports to be a deed of sale, but which was registered, althoughmade subsequent to the deed of gift. The learned District Judgehas expressed the opinion, with regard to the deed of sale, thatit was in truth nothing but a donation, that as a deed of sale itwas an empty transaction, and that the plaintiff must have knownthat the acceptance of the conveyance was merely a nominal coverfor the gift. It is for the appellant to show that that view of thecase is wrong, and I do not think that he can be said to havesucceeded.
The question is really a question of the interpretation of certainwords in the Land Begistration Ordinance, 1891, namely, undersection 17, the words “ valuable consideration.” These words must,I think, be interpreted according to English law. The considerationalleged in this case is that the appellant rendered certain servicesto his deceased grandmother, and expended certain sums for herbenefit. It is stated by a witness to the deed that she, at the timeof its execution, said, with regard to the appellant, that he waslooking after her, that he had attended on her, spent for medicalassistance, brought her there and gave her sea baths, and that hehad better have a conveyance. These words denote as plainly as canbe denoted that the consideration for the deed was a past consider-ation. The principles of English law are perfectly clear, and theyare that a past consideration is no consideration at all, unless it was
moved by a previous request, or unless it was rendered under such *916.
circumstances that a request is implied. I think, therefore, thatBbbxbak
the judgment of the learned District Judge is right, and that the
appeal should be dismissed, with costs.Salman
Ennis J.—I agree.
SALMAN v. OBIAS