Supreme Court dismisses appeal where trial court correctly applied pre-1946 law to transfers made before the new statute. The court held that transfers prior to the Immovable Property Law must be judged under the law in force at the time. The court refused to apply a later precedent regarding post-enactment transfers to this pre-enactment case. The decision affirms that the trial judge's application of the 'old law' was legally sound and the appeal fails. The court emphasized that the distinction between transfers before and after the 1946 law dictates the applicable legal framework. The appellant's reliance on a later case was deemed inapplicable to the specific facts of this dispute. The judgment concludes that the trial court's determination was correct and the appeal is dismissed with costs.

[*117] 1965 February 12

(VASSILIADES, MUNIR, JOSEPHIDES, JJ.)

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Myrofora Spanou of Kythrea,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

Erato Savva of Kythrea,

Respondent-Plaintiff.

(Civil Appeal N0.44.86).

Immovable Property - Immovable Property (Tenure, Registration and Valuation) Law, Cap. 224 - Transfers of registration effected before and after the enactment thereof - Transfers effected before enactment of the Law rightly determined by the trial Court upon the law in force at the time of such transfers, i.e. the "old law" - Old law correctly applied.

G. Constantinides, for the Appellant.

C. J. Myrianthis, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

VASSILIADES. J.: This is an appeal from the Judgment of the District Court of Nicosia in an action between the owners of two neighbouring plots of land, regarding the boundary dividing their respective properties. [*118]

The appeal is made on the short and clear ground given in the appellant's notice*. And, while on this point, we would like to commend the clarity, brevity and precision of the grounds upon which the appeal was based in this case. Unfortunately this cannot be said of most notices containing the grounds upon which cases reach this Court, in its appellate jurisdiction.

Very wisely, in our opinion, learned counsel for the appellant in this case did not challenge the findings of the trial Court, which, we may add, were amply justified upon the evidence.

The appeal was based mainly on the authority of a land-case decided in May, 1963, Rodothea PapaGeorghiou v. Antonis Savva Komodromou (Civil Appeal No. 4393, still unreported) specifically referred to in the grounds of appeal.

As pointed out in the course of the argument this morning, the subject-matter in that case were transfers of registration effected after the enactment of the Immovable Property (Tenure, Registration and Valuation) Law, 1946, now Cap. 224; and the case was decided on certain provisions of that statute. Here we are concerned with transfers effected prior to the enactment of Cap. 224, which the trial Court determined upon the law in force at the time of the transfer, i.e. the law as it stood before Cap. 224 came into force in September 1946.

We are unanimously of opinion that the learned trial Judge was right in deciding this case on what he described in his judgment as the "old law", which, we think, [*119] he correctly applied. Having reached this

conclusion, we can dispose of this appeal without discussing the effect of the judgments in PapaGeorghiou v. Komodromou (supra) which, as already stated, turned mainly on the provisions of the present law, the Immovable Property (Tenure, Registration and Valuation) Law, 1946.

The appeal must, therefore, fail; and is dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed

with costs.

Note: Ground in Appellant's notice: "The holding of the trial Judge that a prescriptive right is transferable without registration is erroneous in law and it is contrary to the Judgment of Civil Appeal No. 4393 decided by the majority of the High Court of Justice of Cyprus on the 20th May, 1963."

* See Note post, at page 119.