Land Law-Unregistered transactions-Priority-Constructive notice-E:ri8tence of
waU setting oD part of premises-Fraud '

A registered sale of land was attacked by a woman claiming a prior
though unregistered sale of a portion of the land to her. It appeared that'
she had been permitted to enter the land to build a wall separating the
disputed portion from 'the rest, but that the seller had otherwise treated

                  the whole property as his own.'                                      

Held: The existence of the wall did not amount to constructive notice
af the first transaction s~ the' agent of. the 'Second purchaser made
inq!!!ries of the seller about the wall and' was genuinely satisfied with
the answer. The second sale was entitled to priority.

Title of Land Ordinance 1899, s. 13.

Appeal

. Advocate: Mr. Drower ... for appellants.'

December 23, 1907. Wasey Sterry, Acting J.e.: In my opinion
, there is only one very short point in this case.

The facts are as follows: on September 28, 1902, Daniel Dasta
purchased from Halabia Bint Musa the plot of land No. 4106, part of
which is now in dispute, and on October 21; 1902, he registered his
purchase. On November 4,1902, he mortgaged the property to the
National Bank and the mortgage was registered on November 6.
Various releases and re-mortgages of the propetty to the bank took
place until on June' 14, 1904, the last mortgage was paid off; that
transaction was registered on May 16, 1905. On January 8, 1906,
Daniel Dasta sold the property to Samuel Eff. Attia and the "sale was
registered on January 9th. On November 23, 1906, Samuel Eff. Attia
s¢a the property to Helene Boustros through the medium of her agent
Shukrl Rayis and the sale was presented for registration on November
24th, the next day. The registration being completed on the 27th. I

·Court: Wasey Sterry, ActiDg J.C.

1 It is admitted that the statement of facts in the judgement IS confused.

The case recordIs not available so the facts could not be supplemented.

would remark here that ever since Dasta was dealing with and treating

        the. whole property as his own.                                              

It now appears that some time subsequent to the purchase by
Dasta, he allowed the respondent Raya Bint EI Said to enter upon part
of the property and build a wall on it separating it from the rest. Raya
says she purchased this piece of, land, but assuming that this sale did
actually take place, no document was ever written until the eve of
Dasta's departure for Abyssinia in the middle of 1906 and this docu-

ment has never been registered.

Mrs. Helene Boustros is the registered owner on a sale for value
and under Section 13 1 of the Title of Lands Ordinance 1899 this sale
must have priority over the unregistered sale to Raya, unless she can
show that Mrs. Helene Boustros or her agent Mr. Shukri EI Rayis had
notice of the unregistered sale to Raya.

The learned civil judge has found that Dasta was guilty of a
fraud and that, therefore, Raya is entitled now to have the piece sold
to her registered in her name. In my opinion, the fraud of Dasta can
have no effect whatever on Mrs. Boustros' title. The only fraud that
would be material would be fraud on her part. The one point then
that I have to &cide is, did Or did not Shukri EI Rayis, , agent of Mrs.
Boustros, have notice of the previous sale to Raya.

In my opinion Raya is unable to show that he had. The agent of
Raya has called some evidence to attempt to prove this and that the
Registry had been informed before registration of her claim. This is
plainly not so. I have seen the Registry papers and the first notice
given to the Registry was on December 8th, the registration- tc Mrs.
Helene Boustros having been completed eleven days previously.

The only question that remains and that has given me any diffi-
culty is whether there was such constructive notice to Shukri Rayis,
by reason of the existence of the wall, as to nullify the effect of kegis-
tration. In my opinion there was not. I see no reason to dou~t the
evidence of Shukri Rayis that he made enquiries of Dasta as to this
and that he was bona fide satisfled with his answer. In my opinion if
constructive notice is to have the effect of cancelling a registration it

1 Section 13, Title of Lands Ordinance 1899 reads:

"A registered dealing with land for value made without notice of a
prior unregistered dealing shall have priority over such unregistered dealing
even although it be subsequently registered."