The caveat was registered with the Registrar of Titles. A claimed that the lien had been lost when R departed with the title. He wants R to withdraw his caveat so that cross-transfer can be executed. (Because there was caveat, registration Of transfer was refused. ) Held: S 134 of the Land Code: When a lien is intended to be created over any land the proprietor may deposit his grant, lease of State land, certificate of title, or extract from the mike register, and the person with whom the same has been deposited ay present a caveat.

Upon registration of such caveat the lien shall be created. ACID must be deposited to the person who wished to enter into a lien-holder’s caveat Cline is not created upon deposit of title as it was before (S 80 of Registration of Titles Enactment) but only upon registration of the caveat. Lien may not be lost where possession is no longer retained. The test whether a lien is in existence is whether there is a caveat on the land or not. (not whether the title is still in the possession of the lien-holder.

Hire a custom writer who has experience.
It's time for you to submit amazing papers!

order now

Not having he title in possession does not mean that the lien ceased to exist or the lien- holder had intended to give up the lien. Caveat was still in force. Respondent was no longer in possession of the part of the title for the land over which the lien was created is not evidence that the lien has ceased to exist. He cannot withdraw the present caveat and lodge a fresh one (SSL 75 of the Land Code forbids registration of second caveat). Must see the intention of the parting with the title. If the intention to part with DID was to abandon the lien, then he lien would become invalid.

If the parting of the DID was for other purposes e. G. Property is delivered to the owner for some particular purpose on an undertaking by the owner that he will return it, then the lien is still valid. Or’s immediate intention in surrendering the title was to enable the Collector to sub-divide. That act did not deprive himself of his lien. Or’s rights to be entitled to a lien under S 134 are not affected by an agreement between co-owners to subdivide land and execute cross transfers.