056-NLR-NLR-V-10-CATHERINA-v.-SILVA.pdf
( 260 )
Present: Mr. Justice Middleton.
CATHERINA v. SILVA.C. fi., Galle, 8,443.
Court of Requests—Jurisdiction—Subject-matter of suit—Title to properlyover Rs. 300 in value involved—Claim in reconvention—Courts
Ordinance, No. 1 of 1889, S. 81.
Where theplaintiff broughtan actionin the Court ofBequests
to vindicate title to- aportionof land ofthevalue of Bs.36, and
the defendant also set up title to the Bame * portion, alleging that itformed part of a larger land exceeding Bs. 300 in value, ‘ andobjected to the jurisdiction of 'the Court of Bequests to try theaction on the ground thatthevalue ofthe property involved in
the action exceeded Bs. 300 in value,—
Held,that the jurisdictionofthe Courtmust be determined by
the value ofplaintiff'aclaim,and such claimbeing underBs. 300
in value, the Court of Bequests had jurisdiction to entertain the same.
Held, also,that thepropercoarse wasfor'the defendantto . have
claimedin reconvention titletothe largerland, and moved for a
transferof the case fromtheCourt ofBequests to the District
Court under section 81 of the Courts Ordinance.
A
CTION rei vindication The facts and arguments sufficientlyappear in the judgment.
«
A. St. V. Jayewardene,' for the defendant, appellant.
H. A. Jayewardene, for the plaintiff, respondent.
1907.July 16.
Cur. adv. vult.
16th July, 1907. Middleton J.—
This was an action to "vindicate title to 2 kuxunies of land formingpart of one .acre, the alleged property of the plaintiff, which thedefendant had wrongfully taken possession of. The defendantpleaded that the action being in effect to vindicate title to a separateentity of 1 acre of a value exceeding Rs. 300, the action was notwithin the jurisdiction of the Court of Requests (section 4 of Ordi-t nance No. 12 of 1895).^ r
The issues settled by the Commissioner in default of agreementby the parties were as follows: —
Is the 1 acre extent of land in question a separate land, ori6 it a portion of Delgatiakanattewatta, 6aid to be itswestern boundary?
( 261 )
Do the 2 kurunies in question form part of the 1 acre extent ?
Has plaintiff acquired prescriptive title to this 1 acre extent?
What is the cause ol action in this case, and is the value of
what is in dispute Buch as to render the action nottriable in this Court?
Is this action not maintainable because the co-owners of
Delgahakanattewatta are not joined?
The third issue therefore made the title of the whole 1 acre a pointto be decided on the question of prescription. The land had beensurveyed and marked A 2 and A 3; and the portion A 3, which is thatin dispute, being only of a value of Rs. 36, the Commissioner ofRequests proceeded to trial, and held that A 2 and A 3 were aseparate land, and that defendant had encroached on and takenpossession of the 2 kurunies forming A 3.
The defendant appealed, and contended that the action being ineffect as to the title to the one acre of a value exceeding Rs. 300 wasbeyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Requests, and that thejudgment, although it might be said only to decide the title to the2 kurunies/ would have the effect of res judicata as against the defend-ant in regard to the whole acre. Counsel were unable to produceany authorities, and I adjourned the case for research.
Counsel for the appellant subsequently cited Oenamer v. Amenun-lagey,1 where in 1856 a judgment in the Court of Requests was set-aside on the ground that in a claim to recover certain paddy theparties had put in the title of the field in issue, the field being ofa value beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Requests. Thelearned counsel then referred to 187, D. C., dalle,3 where it washeld, following the judgment of this Court in D. C-, Galle, 4,312,that a decree in a land acquisition case rejecting the claim of analleged shareholder in the land to compensation would operate asres judicata between the same parties when a subsequent claim onthe ground of prescription was raised by the claimant. Thejudgment, however, does not refer fully to the facts in that case,and it is conceivable that a title by prescription might arise afterthe necessary period had elapsed from the rejection of a claim onanother ground.
The case of C. R., Kandy, 3,044,3 was also quoted to show thatthe grounds of a decision might involve the definite exclusion of aparty to any part of the land, and thus a decision as regards a claimfor a sharefc might be res judicata as to the whole land. The casesreported in Q* Weekly Reporter 175 and 1 Browne 21 seem to me tohave^but little bearing on the question. I think, as cqunsel forthe respondent put it, primd facie the criterion .of jurisdiction isthe nature and value of the plaintiff's claim.
1 1 Lor. 23.* S. C. Min. April 10, 1905.
3 S. C. Min.t March 12, 1906.
1907.
July 15.
Middleton
J.
1907.
July 15.
Middleton
J.
( 262 )
In the present case the plaintiff's claim involved the right to 2kurunies of land on his boundary. The defendant, however, inthe third paragraph of his answer traversed the plaintiff's title to (hewhole acre, and this was the third issue. This issue the Commis-sioner of Bequests tried, and found apparently by the judgment inthe plaintiff’s favour, so that the judgment might be res judicata ofthe defendant’s claim to the whole acre.
In C. B., Colombo, 32,83s,1 my brother Wendt held that if theshare of a. land in respect of which the plaintiff claimed was notshown to be worth more than Be. 300, the plaintiff might maintainhis action in the Court of Bequests. In that case the plaintiffclaimed one-third, and conceded two-thirds to the defendant. Hereeach party claims the. whole land, which in value is beyond (hejurisdiction of the Court of Bequests, but the plaintiff only soughtfor a decision as to a part, the value of which was within theCourt's jurisdiction. Counsel for the appellant referred to theEnglish ■ Procedure in .the Annual Practice (Vol, I.t pp. 246 and 415.1800 ed.)t when a Court binds itself without jurisdiction as to stridingout a cause.
I think, however, as suggested by counsel for the respondent, thiscase might have been dealt with under section 81 of the CourtsOrdinance. Under that section no relief exceeding that which theCourt has jurisdiction to administer shall be given to the defendantupon any claim in reconvention of the defendant involving matterbeyond the jurisdiction of the Court. There is no such claim here,but the Court of Bequests has held and' decided an issue beyond itsjurisdiction. The Court could not have tried the issue of theownership of the smaller piece in dispute without trying that of thelarger; and the defendant might have claimed in reconvention andobtained an order under section 81, and did not do so. The decree inthis case does not declare the plaintiff's right t'o anything beyond thetwo kurunies of land, which is clearly within the Court's jurisdiction,and so has not given relief beyond its jurisdiction. Consideringthat the defendant did not avail himself of his opportunity undersection 81, I do not propose to interfere with the judgment, andexpress no opinion as to the defendant’s rights to bring a freshaction for the whole acre. The case of Mussumat Bdun v. MussumatBeckun3 seems to enunciate a principle as to estoppels establishedand followed by the Privy Council, which might be applicable tothe case of the Courts in Ceylon. I only slate that in my opinionthe Court of Bequests had not made a decree beyond its jurisdiction,which is practically the ground of the appeal. The appeal mqpt bedismissed' wi/sh costs.
Appeal dismissed.
* V. C. Mm., December 21, 1905.
*.(1876) 8 Weekly Reporter 176.