140-NLR-NLR-V-43-DE-SILVA-v.-WEERAPPA-CHETTIAR.pdf
De Silva v. Weerappa Chctliar.
5G5
1942Present: Howard' C.J. and Soertsz J.
DE SILVA v. WEERAPPA CHETTIAR.
313—D. C. Negombo, 10,378.
Registration—Document registered in wrong folio—Negligent entry by clerk.—Document deprived of priority—Registration of Documents Ordinancess. 7 and 15 (I).
Where, owing to the negligent entry of a registering officer, a documentof title is not registered in accordance with the provisions of section 15 (1)of the Registration of Documents Ordinance, the document is deprivedof the priority conferred on it by section 7 of the Ordinance.
A
PPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Negombo. Thefacts are fully stated in the judgment of Soertsz J. in de Silva
v. Weerappa Chettiar
N. Nadarajah, K.C. (with him J. E. A. Alles), for the substituted. defendants (8a to 8i), appellants.
H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him T. K. Curtis), for the plaintiff, respondent.
1 41 X. L. R. 560.
Cur. adv. vult.
43/40
566
De Silva v. Weerappa Chettiar.
September 30, 1942. Howard C.J.—–
The case put forward by Mr. Perera has our sympathy but we feelwe must find against him and in favour of the representatives of theeighth defendant. In coming to this conclusion we have had regardto the relevant sections of the Registration of Documents Ordinance(Cap. 101). In section 7 of the Ordinance it is provided that an instru-ment is void as-against a subsequent instrument unless it is duly registeredunder the Ordinance. To find out the interpretation which must be givento the expression “ duly registered ” we must turn to sections 15 and 16of the Ordinance. Section 16 provides that the registration of aninstrument shall be effected by entering the prescribed particulars in theproper folio. Section 15 provides that an instrument, whether registeredbefore or after the commencement of this Ordinance, shall not be deemedto be duly registered under this Chapter unless it is registered in accord-ance with the foregoing provisions of this section. The foregoingprovisions of this section provide for registration in the same folioin which the previous dealings with the land have been registered or in anew folio with cross-references. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, his titlewas not registered in accordance with section 15 (1) and, therefore, hisinstrument is void as against the instrument on which the eighthdefendant’s representatives base their title. The plaintiff’s instrumentwas not, therefore, duly registered.
The judgment of Wood-Renton C.J., in the case of Comelis v.Abeysinghecited by Mr. Perera, has no bearing on the facts of this case,inasmuch as it was given before sections 15 and 16 of the Ordinanceformed part of the law.
In expressing our sympathy for Mr. Perera’s client, we recommendto the notice of the Government the fact that the present position of theplaintiff is due to the negligent entry of his document of title in theRegistration book.
There must, therefore, be judgment for the representatives of theeighth defendant. We make no further order as to costs.
Soertsz J.—I agree.
Ap-peal allowed.