Partition Action, Interpretation of Deeds, Construction of Deed of Gift, Pedigree and Share Devolution, Burden of Proof, Non-Answering of Issues, Approbation and Reprobation

-

 Headnote drawn by "GALLELAWBLOGGER"

Maddage Semapala v. Devika Weerakoon

Partition Action, Interpretation of Deeds, Construction of Deed of Gift, Pedigree and Share Devolution, Burden of Proof, Non-Answering of Issues, Approbation and Reprobation

The Plaintiff instituted a partition action in 1986 before the District Court of Horana, seeking division of the land “Indigahagodalla” at Labugama, claiming 87/288 shares (80 perches). His case rested on two chains of title: (i) (i) (i) through a deed from Abaya Weerakoon (P18), not disputed, and (ii) through inheritance rights of Arnolis’s descendants, supported by two deeds, P16 and P17 executed in 1980. The central issue concerned the interpretation of Deed No. 19977 of 1906 (P15), whereby Arnolis, who held 7/12 shares of the corpus, conveyed land to his son Nomis and nephews Themis and Liveris.

The Plaintiff contended that P15 transferred only 1/3 of Arnolis’s entitlement, leaving 2/3 to devolve by inheritance to his daughter Manchi Nona and her descendants, from whom the Plaintiff claimed title. The Defendants contended that P15 transferred Arnolis’s entire 7/12 share to the three grantees, leaving nothing to devolve by inheritance. The District Court accepted the Defendants’ interpretation, rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim through P16 and P17, and allotted shares accordingly. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

On further appeal, the Plaintiff argued misinterpretation of P15, erroneous allocation of shares, and non-answering of issues at trial.

Held (Fernando CJ, Janak De Silva J. and Priyantha Fernando J. concurring):

The proper construction of P15 shows that Arnolis conveyed his entire 7/12 entitlement to Nomis, Themis and Liveris. No residual share devolved by inheritance. The Plaintiff’s contention that 2/3 remained unallotted is unsupported by deed recitals or evidence.

The Plaintiff’s reliance on P16 and P17 is untenable, as these deeds do not refer to Arnolis, the Crown Grant, or a devolved 2/3 share, and amount to conjecture.

Having derived title through P18, which itself acknowledges the chain of title from P15, the Plaintiff cannot approbate and reprobate by simultaneously disputing P15.

The trial judge correctly analyzed the pedigree and share devolvement; failure to separately answer issues did not cause prejudice, as the judgment substantively addressed all matters.

Both the District Court and Court of Appeal judgments were rational and free of legal error.

Appeal dismissed with costs of Rs. 100,000. Judgments of the District Court and Court of Appeal affirmed.

READ JUDGMENT - CLICK

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

constructive trust - synopsys of a presentation

-
Image
  TRUST - A presentation -  October 29, 2016 786 GALLELAW BLOGGER   [ many authorities cited in this document have been hyperlinked by the blogger to save the precious time of the reader]     "Constructive trust serves as the guardian of the oppressed when the rigidity of written law hinders the pursuit of justice. It embodies the flexibility and moral conscience of the legal system, ensuring that equity prevails where legal technicalities may fall short. By recognizing the rightful claims of those unjustly deprived, constructive trust provides a path to fairness and restores balance, offering hope and remedy to those wronged by the limitations of formal law." - GALLELAWBLOGGER     October 29, 2016   TRUST – synopsis of a presentation made to the District Judges on 24.8.2002 by A W A Salam at the auditorium of the Office of Judicial Service Commission presided over by Justices Udalagama Director of SLJI  ...
Read more

EQUITY SAVES A MAN AND HIS RESIDENCIAL HOUSE- CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST SUPREME COURT RECENT JUDGMENT ARJUNA OBEYSEKERA J

-
Image
  The plaintiff sued the 1st and 2nd Defendants for a declaration of title to the subject matter of the action and ejectment of a landed property. In the amended answer, the 2nd defendant admitted the execution of several deeds affecting the subject matter including one in favour of Odayan Kureishan, but claimed that Kureishan, the 1st defendant, and subsequently the plaintiff, came to hold the property in trust for him [ the 2nd Defendand]​​  The main issue was whether the beneficial interest in the property had been transferred to Odayan Kureishan or if the property was being held in trust for the 2nd  defendant by Kureishan, the 1st defendant, and subsequently the plaintiff. Essentially, the court had to determine if these transactions were actual sales or just loans with the second defendant still owning the property.  The District Court decided that the beneficial interest in the property had not been transferred to Odayan Kureishan. The court held that the prop...
Read more

some selected

-
Image
  Terms of Service · Privacy · Content Policy All Blogs MANAGE GALLELAW BLOGGER 1 minute ago PEIRIS AND ANOTHER v. PERERA AND ANOTHER Sri Lanka Law Reports 2002 - Volume 2 , Page No - 128 *PEIRIS AND ANOTHER v. PERERA AND ANOTHER* *(The blogger's understanding of the judgment is summarized as follows)* *CLICK ON ME* The defendants filed a petition seeking permission to appeal against the orders issued by the District Judge on January 19 and January 24, 2001. They also requested a stay of proceedings in DC Panadura case No. 2794/spl. Initially, the court granted a stay order on January 31, 2001, but later refused to extend it on April 6, 2001, as the dispute involved a right of way. The situation arose from the following facts: The District Judge, through his o...  read more GALLELAW BLOGGER 5 days ago Having exercised jurisdiction the Magistrate is not permitted to revisit the question of breach of peace. The Magistrate is clothed with the jurisdiction to ent...
Read more