Ramkhelawan v Mohanlal [1950] FijiLawRp 2; [1946-1955] 4 FLR 37 (14 December 1950)

[1946-1955] 4 FLR 37

SUPREME COURT OF FIJI

Civil Jurisdiction

KALLU LABBU RAMKHELAWAN

v

MOHANLAL

Carew, P.J.

December 14th, 1950

Crown Protected Lease-s. 15 of the Crown Lands Ordinance-null and void transfer-whether monies paid recoverable.

The plaintiff agreed to purchase the transfer of a Crown lease from the defendant and paid him a portion of the agreed amount. The plaintiff then erected a house on the land.

The lease was a protected lease and after some correspondence with the Director of Lands, the defendant withdrew his application for the Director's consent to the transfer.

The defendant then took possession of the building.

The plaintiff then claimed from the defendant the return of part of the purchase price paid for the Crown lease and the cost of building the house.

Judgment in the resulting action in the Supreme Court was as follows:-

HELD –

The transfer being an illegal one, the monies paid were not recoverable.

Cases referred to:-

Anderson, Ltd. v Daniel [1924] 1 KB. 138.

Bloxsome v Williams 3 B & C 232.

Cope v Rowlands 2 M & W 149.

Harry Parker Ltd. v Mason [1940] 2 KB 510.

Mahmoud v Ispahani [1921] 2 KB 716.

Parkinson v College of Ambulance, Lim 93 L.J. 1066.

S. Hasan for the plaintiff.

A. I. N. Deoki for the defendant.

CAREW, P.J.-The plaintiff claims the sum of £78 4s. 9d. paid by him to the defendant towards the purchase price of Crown Lease No. 1569 which the defendant agreed to transfer to the plaintiff; and he claims special damages amounting to £2,801 11s. 9d. for expenses incurred by him in erecting a residential building on the said Crown Lease, or alternatively, a sum of £2,801 l1s. 9d. being the expenditure incurred by the plaintiff in erecting the building at the request of the defendant.

The facts are as follows. The defendant is the holder of Crown (Protected) Lease No. 1569 at Samabula, Suva. The plaintiff discussed the purchase of this lease with Ramdulari, a brother-in-law of the defendant, who handed the lease document to the plaintiff. The plaintiff retained this document. About the l1th April, 1949, the plaintiff verbally agreed with the defendant to purchase the Crown Lease for the sum of £80; it was agreed that something should be put in writing, but in the meantime, as the plaintiff wishes to build, he was informed by the defendant that he could have plans made and begin building.