19

D—l

Sale and Transfer of Land. It is further said that, considering that the measure is novel in its character as well as in its operation— considering the advantages of gradually introducing it, instead of incumbering the registry office with a mass of applications which it would be difficult to get through—considering that the main object of establishing such a system is to obtain, if possible, a facility of transfer which many persons whose properties are kept in a course of settlement may not desire immediately to possess—and considering that the change is sure to recommend itself if it is likely to be followed by those benefits which are anticipated, it would be advisable, at least in the first instance, to make the registration purely voluntary. It is said, on the other hand (a) that there should be one law for the whole country, and that it would be a highly objectionable system to propose that some purchasers may bring their estates within the pale of registration, and others, at their option, remain unaffected thereby. It is also urged that a main benefit of the system will be lost, if the register should not be the sole and conclusive evidence of dealings taking place after the establishment of the register, or if, as to such dealings, a retrospective investigation of the title by purchasers should in any class of cases be necessary. Generation after generation (b) might pass away in the successive enjoyment of property without any assertion of title on the register ; and when made, some thirty, forty, or fifty years hence, it must either be clothed with a parliamentary or other warranted title, or else after that lapse of time a retrospective investigation of title would be needful. The conclusion to which we have come on this point, though not without some difference of opinion, is that registration shall not, at any rate in the first instance, be necessary to a transfer of the fee in order to obtain for it preference or priority over any subsequent transfer which may be brought to the registry for completion. 5. Another mode in which registration may be made compulsory is to require that, as to al land once voluntarily put on the register, the subsequent dealings and titles should be always continued on the register. In this sense we concur in thiukiug that registration should be compulsory. XLVIII. With reference to the second of the questions above pointed out, we think that the observations already made, showing that applicants for registration ought not to be required first to submit their title to judicial scrutiny, are sufficient to prove the objectionable nature of any scheme of registration which should profess to confer at the outset a parliamentary or unimpeachable title. It would, we think, be oppressive, either on the one hand to require claimants out of possession to come forward, and make assertion of their rights, in order to avoid losing them, or, on the other, to put the persons in possession to the defence of their rights, as against any stale claims or assertions of right that might be set up. We do not think that in order (c) to pass from our present system to a register of title it would be necessary, as has been suggested, to create a jurisdiction in commissioners, applicable to all land, whether incumbered or not, similar to that of the Incumbered Estates Court in Ireland, by which an absolute or parliamentary title to the land, subject to leases or tenancies, should be declared. On the contrary, we concur in the opinion of one of the witnesses (d) who has given evidence before us, that to make a judicial or quasi-judicial examination of title an indispensable preliminary to admission to the register would greatly narrow the benefits of registration. The expense alone of the examination would exclude nearly all small properties, and the trouble and expense combined would exclude many others. Defective titles would necessarily be excluded; and we do not see why a defect in the title to land anterior to the introduction of registration need deprive that land of the benefit of an improved mode of transfer subsequently. We think that a registration founded on ostensible or possessory ownership should be permitted in the first instance, and that on such a registration the antecedent title might be left to be the subject of investigation, until by lapse of time or otherwise that investigation should become unnecessary. XLIX. The next question we have to consider is, whether interests existing in land before the time of the first registration of the land shall be in any manner affected by the operation of the register, after the lapse of any given period or otherwise. It has been strongly urged upon us (c) that if the provisions of the registry should operate upon the subsequent title only, and if the old title should be left open to investigation for the full period during which it is now liable to be affected by latent rights, the utility of the registry would be wholly lost to the present generation. On the other hand, it is said that any one who by the existing law has an interest which he might set up, supposing there were no registration of the ownership, ought to be allowed the same period of time and the same opportunities that he now has for asserting his right, though the effect of his claim might be to disturb and undo the existing registration at a remote time subsequent to the commencement of the registry. The question hence arises, whether the principal benefit of the proposed system, which is the avoiding the necessity for retrospective investigation of the title, may not be secured by fair and reasonable provisions at some period earlier than the full time when all possible claims existing anterior to the registry would, by the existing law,

Second question (Parliamentary title) considered.

Third question (pre-existing inteiests) considered.

(a) Mr. Kettle's evidence (6) Mr. Dugmore's evidence, (c) Professor Hancock's evidence, (rf) Mr. Macdonnell's evidence. 0) Mr. Commissioner Longfield's, Mr. J. B. Murphy's, Mr. Dugmore's, Mr. Meadows White's, and Mr. Farrar'i evidence.