026-NLR-NLR-V-18-WICKREMESINGHE-v.-JAYASINGHE.pdf
( «4 )
1914.
Present: Pereira J. and Ennis J.
WICKEEMESINGHE r. JAYASINGHE.
384—D. G. Colombo, 37,510.
Possessory suit—Valuation of subject-matter of suit is land itself.
The. right asserted and claimed in a possessory suit is the sighto! perpetual possession of the land in claim as against the defendant.Owing to the impracticability of accurately valuing such a right,the course usually adopted is to regard the right as being equal invalue to the value of the laud itself. The value of the right ofpossession of the land for a year is a fallacious test.
A. St. V. Jayewardene and D. B. Jayatileke, for plaintiff,appellant.
Cur. adv. vult.
November 17, 1914. Pereira J.—
The simple question in this case is how the right in claim in apossessory action is to be valued. The learned District Judge isof opinion that the value of the right claimed in^a possessory actionis the value of possession for one year, because, as. he says, the valueof the right in question is to be ascertained by valuing the fact orevent which creates the right. I cannot agree with him here at all.This Court has djefinitely held that, in a case of ouster by violence,proof of possession for a year and a day is not necessary to enableone to maintain a possessory action. If, therefore, in the one casethe .tost of jurisdiction is the value of possession s for a year and aday, by parity of reasoning, the test in the other case would, Isuppose, be the cost of the violence used. I cannot accede toeither proposition. The value of the subject-matter in a possessoryaction is the value of the right claimed, and that, so far as thataction is concerned, is the right of perpetual possession of the landas against the defendant. It is as difficult to assess such a rightas it is to assess the value of a right to an annuity in an individualcase, but it is none the less necessary to assess it. The courseusually adopted is to regard the right as being equal in value tothe actual value of the land, and in the case of the 0. B. C. EstatesCo. v. Brooks & Go. 1 the Supreme Court found no fault with theplaintiffs for following that course. In the present case the partieshave suggested no issue as to the value of the right claimed, and,therefore, I think that the assessment of that value by the plaintiff
* I S. C. B. 1.
■where he follows the usual course referred to above, might wellbe accepted.
I would set aside the order appealed from and remit the case tothe Court below for proceedings in due course. All costs so farshould, I think, be costs in the cause.
1M4.
Pebeiba J.
Wickreme-ainghe r.Jctyasinghe
Atoms J.—I agree.
Set aside.