074-NLR-NLR-V-19-TIKIRALE-v.-PAVISTINAHAMY.pdf
(287)
Present: De Sampayo -J.
TIKI RALE v. PAVTSTINA B A M V135—C. R. Matale, 11,435.
Husband and wife—Deed purporting to dispose of immovable propertyexecuted by married t woman—Attestation of deed by her husbandwho was a notary—“ Written consent ” not given—OrdinanceNo. 15 of 1876.
A deed by a married woman, by which she purported to conveyimmovable property, was attested bj* her husband, who was anotary.
Held, that the deed was invalid, as her husband (notary) had notexpressed his consent to the execution of the deed in writing.
rjlHE facts appear from the judgment.
Sansuni, for defendant, appellant.—The learned Commissionerwas wrong in holding that the deed by Helenahamy in favour of onepredecessor was invalid. Helenahamy’s husband has signed thedeed, and that is equal to his consent being given in writing (secPonnammal v. Pattaye*).
1916
J 6 S. C. D. 87.a 2. L. R. 22 Cal. 286.
3 4 N. L. R. 213.
* (1910) 13 N. L. R. 201.
( 2«8 )
1916.[De Sampayo J.—But in this case Helenahamy’s husband happens
Tikiralt v. to be the attesting notary and he had to sign the deed.] But here1JPaviatinu- the notary has signed in two places, once in Sinhalese and then iuhamy i-Jhglish. jt is submitted that the Sinhalese signature, which isbelow the signatures of the two witnesses, was made by him ashusband, and the English signature was made as notary.
J. Joaejih, for plaintiff, respondent, not called upon.
June 6, 1916. De Sampayo J.—
The only point that need be considered on this appeal is whetherthe deed No. 6,697, dated March 11, 1886, executed by HelenaMendis in favour of the defendant's predecessor in title, waslegally operative. Helena Mendis was the wife of Arnolis Dias,and their marriage relations were governed by the provisions ofthe Ordinance No. 15 of 1876. She. therefore, required the writtenconsent of her husband for disposing of her immovable property.Curiously, her husband was the notary who attested the deed, butthat fact is in itself insufficient to satisfy the requirements ofthe Ordinance. The defendant’s counsel refers to the husband’ssignature appearing below those of two witnesses, and relies on theFull Bench decision in Ponnammal v. Pattaye.1 That decision hasno application to the present case. There the husband, who wasnot himself the notary, had put his signature below those of thewitnesses, and the majority of the Court considered that in thecircumstances his signature had no other meaning than as givingconsent in writing, though there were no express words to thateffect. But in this case Arnolis Dias was the attesting notary,and as his signature was required as such, its appearance on thedeed has not the same significance. Counsel for, the defendantthen points out that Arnolis Dias has signed twice over, first inSinhalese and then in English, and argues that he first signedas husbaud and as giving his consent, and then as attesting notary.But it is impossible to accept this suggestion. For, in additionto the signature below those of the witnesses, there is a formalattestation clause, which, of course, has been signed by ArnolisDias in his capacity as notary only, and there also he has signedtwice over in the same way as in the former place. The factappears to be that Arnolis Dias, as notary, adopted this form ofsignature, as, indeed, a Sinhalese notary is now at least obliged todo by the Ordinance No. 1 of 1907, section 29, sub-section (20), andthat although his name is put both in Sinhalese and in English, itis one and the same signature. That being so, the defendant isnot able to depend on the ruling in Ponnammal v. Pattaye.*
The appeal fails, and is therefore dismissed, with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
(1910) 13 N. L. R. 201.