087-NLR-NLR-V-19-SANGARAPILLAI-v.-KANDIAH-et-al.pdf
( 344 )
1916.
Present: Wood Benton C.J. and Shaw J.
SANGARAPILDAI v. KANDIAH et al.
442—D. C. Jaffna, 10,792.
Trust—Purchase of land in the name of another without that person'sknowledge.
A agreed to buy a land from B and paid the purchase mopey,but, fearing – some litigation, obtained a conveyance in the name ofC withoutC’s knowledge. A informedC subsequently of ,the'
execution of the deed in O’s favour, and O acquiesced in it, andagreed to transfer the land to A whenever called upon.
Held, that C held the land in trust for A, and that C ' could*maintain an action for a conveyance for the land from C, or ifj;C had parted with the land, to recover its value.
rpHE facts are set out in the judgment.
A. St. V. Jayawardene (with him Balasingham), for appellant.
Wadsworth (with him J. Joseph), for respondent.
Gut. adv. vult.
December 6, 1916. Shaw J.—
The appellant sued the respondent for a declaration that a certaintransfer deed of November 20, 1905, by which an undivided one-sixth share of a land called Koyilkadu was conveyed by on?Velanthar Sinnappu to the respondent, was executed in favour ofthe respondent in trust for the appellant. The appellant prayedfor an order that the respondent should be ordered to execute a.conveyance in his favour, or in the alternative, if he was unable todo so, that he should be ordered to pay Rs. 450 as damages.
( 345 )
Originally, one ELandiah, to whom the respondent had conveyedthe interest in the land by deed of August 28, 1915, was joinedas a defendant in the action, but the appellant subsequentlyabandoned the claim against him, and restricted his prayer to onefor damages against the respondent.
At the hearing the appellant gave evidence to the effect that,although the deed of November 20, 1905, was executed in favourof the respondent, the appellant was the real purchaser and paidthe purchase money, and that he had got the deed executed5n favour of the respondent, because he thought there might belitigation respecting the transaction. According to his evidencethe respondent was not aware of the transaction at the time, butwas told by the appellant of it subsequently, and acquiesced in'it, and even agreed to transfer the interest to the appellant whencalled upon.
During the appellant’s evidence the Judge stopped the case.and gave judgment for the respondent, saying in his judgment thatan informal promise by the respondent to convey the land, such' as was suggested by the evidence, had no binding effect, and thatit was not possible to base upon the facts given in evidence anystructure of trust.
I am unable to agree with .the District Judge. It is well-estab-lished law in England that where a purchase is made in the name*of a stranger, a trust of the legal estate results in favour of theperson out of whose pocket the money for the purchase has come(see Lewin on Trusts, 11th ed., p. 178, and the numerous cases therecited). ” The clear result,” said Lord Chief Baron Eyre in Dyer v.Dyer 1 ‘ ‘ of all the cases, without a single exception, is that the truth.
of a legal estateresults to the man' who advances the
purchase money,” and this is so whether the property purchasedbe movable or immovable. In such cases the Statute of Fraudscannot operate to prevent proof of what the real transaction was,for the Statute of Frauds cannot be used to cover a fraud (Lewin'ICO).
The presumption that arises in favour of a trust to the realpurchaser is, however, no more than an arbitrary implication inthe absence of reasonable proof to the contrary, and the nominalpurchaser is at liberty to rebut the presumption by the production’of evidence showing the intention of conferring the beneficialinterest on him (see Lewin 18S and cases there cited).
Similar principles to those obtaining under the English law havebeen recognized here (see Qhlmus v. Ohlmus,3 Mohamadu Marilcar tJIbrahim Naina3), and they are in accordance with the importantprinciple of the Roman-Dutch law, that no person shall be enriched?at the expense of another.
* 2 Cox 93.3 (1906) 9 N. L. Ft. 183.
s (1910) 13 N. If, R. 187.
1916.
Shaw J.
jS angora- ■pHlai v.Kandiah..
( 346
/
1916.
Shaw J.
Sangara-piUai v.
Kandiah.
The evidence given at the end oi the appellant’s examination,that the respondent agreed to transfer the property to him, appearsto me to be admissible, not, indeed, to prove any agreement |toconvey, but to show that the respondent recognized that a trustexisted in favour of the appellant.('
I would set aside the judgment appealed from, and send the caseback for the evidence to be proceeded with, and for further deter-mination of the issues. The appellant should have the costs ofthis appeal.
Wood Renton C.J.—I agree.
Sent back.