Estoppel-Registration of title to land-Whether registrant call deny the title
of those in whose names he procured registration

Prescription-Estop pel-Prescription against the persons in whose name appli-
cant procured registration

Land Law-Usufruct-Consent lacking

1. Mere registration of land in the name of "all the heirs" by the true
owners does not in' itself make the true owners usufructuaries of all the
persons in whose name the land has been registered:

2. Registration of land in the name of "all the heirs" as a means of
resolving a dispute between three heirs having claims to the land does not
create an estoppel to claim alteration of the register at a later date in
the absense of a contract to give the land to all the heirs.

Revision

The facts as they appear from the judgement of the province judge
are as follows:

Prior to the reconquest Suleiman Abboud, the owner of 3 sagias
in Shendi District, died leaving a number of heirs. In 1906, at the
time of Tippett's settlement, the first plaintiff and the father of the

second plaintiff, Abdel Mahmoud, were the main heirs to 107 uds
out of sagia No. 11. Ali, another brother and the uncle of the first
defendant, also claimed an interest. The three brothers got in a dispute
at the time of the settlement and being unable to resolve it they asked
the settlement officer to register the land in the name of all the heirs
of Suleiman Abboud. From 1920 onwards the plaintiffs were in con-
tinuous and undisputed possession of the land which they now claimed
should be registered to them.

Province Judge Harris found that in spite of their continuous
possession and cultivation the plaintiffs held the land in question as
usufructuaries of all the heirs as a result of having proved the title
as such in 1906, and alternatively that the action taken in 1906
worked an estoppel by conduct due to its effect in stopping the ob-
jections of Ali and others at that time.

May 5, 1935. J. P. Gorman, A.C.J.: The facts in this case
appear clearly from the judgement of the province judge. These
facts have been found in such a way that judgement would have been
entered for the appellants but for two questions of law which the judge
answered in favour of the respondents.

In my view both these questions ot law should be answered in
favour of the appellants. The first question was whether the appellants
were usufructuaries of the heirs of Suleiman Abboud and as such unable
to prescribe against them. I think they were not. Usufruct is based

_" on consent, and the heirs were not parties to the registration of the
land in their names nor parties to the taking of possession by Ali,
Ibrahim or Abdel Mahmud. Mere registration in itself is colourless,
else no prescription against the register would ever be possible.

The second question was whether by having taken the registration
in the names of the heirs the appellants are not estopped. I do not
think estoppel enters into this. Estoppel is based on misrepresentation
and no misrepresentation was made to Ali, the only person in whose
favour any estoppel could operate. Ali and Ali's successors cannot
raise estoppel: he or they could only rely on a contract to give the
land to the heirs, but all the facts show neither Ali nor the appellants
had any such intention: their dispute was as to how much they each
should have, they never intended to let others share. Ali and his
representatives therefore are entitled to their proper share, but not to
claim that the registration cannot be altered.

But now a further point emerges. On the appellants' own