TMI Blog1938 (11) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts as being in wrongful possession, S. Don Manis Appu being defendant 1. In the second suit he was the sole defendant. The District Judge dismissed both actions on 23rd March 1933, finding against the appellants on the issue as to title and also on the question whether defendant 1 had acquired a prescriptive title under Ordinance 22 of 1871. The Supreme Court on 22nd January 1936 affirmed the decrees of the District Judge. Without pronouncing upon the issue as to the appellants' title the learned Judges of the Supreme Court proceeded solely upon the ground of prescription under the Ordinance. The defendants have not appeared at the hearing of this appeal by the Board. 2. The two acres (or thereabouts) now in dispute are said by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er property, proof of such undisturbed and uninterrupted possession as hereinbefore explained, by such plaintiff or intervenient or by those under whom he claims, shall entitle such plaintiff or intervenient to a decree in his favour with costs. Provided that the said period of ten years shall only begin to run against parties claiming estates in remainder or reversion from the time when the parties so claiming acquired a right of possession to the property in dispute. 3. Both Courts are in agreement on certain important facts affecting the applicability of this Section. In particular both accept the evidence of a witness called Podi Singho who deposed that from 1911 he had grass from the disputed land cut by his own servants and paid de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s being conduct which an owner of swampy land would not necessarily be minded to resist is an insufficient foundation for a finding of possession in the earlier years, especially as grass cannot be cut all the year round but only (as defendant 2 stated) for six or eight months according to the weather. Mr. de Silva for the appellants has sought very reasonably to lay stress-upon the facts that his clients appear to have paid municipal rates upon the disputed land as part of their total holding until 1929, and that in 1912 they exercised their right of occupation in the disputed land by obtaining a consent decree against a third party in ejectment. 4. While recognizing that the sufficiency of the defendants' evidence of possession for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e suit must therefore be upheld. It follows, in their Lordships' opinion, that, the appellants' suit must fail, since the character of the possession held by defendant 1 and his mother was clearly adverse to the appellants and satisfies Section 3 of the Ordinance. 5. Mr. De Silva contended however that the Section should be construed as introducing the requirement known to the Roman law as justus titulus or justa causa -the words by a title adverse to or independent of that of the claimant or plaintiff being construed as requiring the defendant to prove that his possession was on the footing of some title, however imperfect, and not wholly without right. Learned counsel had however to admit that the law of Ceylon recognized no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m C. J. in (1918) 21 Ceylon New Law Rep 12 Tillekeratne v. Bastian, (1918) 21 cnlr 12 at page 17, relying on Lord Macnaghten's language in (1912) A C 230 Corea v. Appuhamy, A I R (1914) P C 243 = (1912) A C 230 = 81 L J P C 151 = 105 L T 836 held that the parenthesis has no bearing on the meaning of the words 'adverse title': it may henceforth be left out of account in the discussion of the question. 8. Their Lordships cannot accept this dictum of the learned Chief Justice. The Section in its second half discloses the standpoint of the draughtsman by a phrase to which Lord Macnaghten's words may perhaps be attributed- proof of such undisturbed and uninterrupted possession as hereinbefore explained by such plaintiff.... sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
