330
It appears that the petitioners never acquired any title to any rights whatsoever as the root of their title consisted of a forged deed. The Land Court was misled by this forged deed and when the forgery was discovered the Full Court reversed the decision of the Land Court.
The petitioners have their remedy on the covenants contained in the assignment to themselves and in the assignment by the claimants to the intermediate purchasers. Para. 29.
With regard to paragraph 29 of the Petition, it is incorrect to speak of "the purchase of the said property" as there was no property in the land in any person other than the Crown; the only effect of the assignments was to transfer the rights (if any) of the claimants to ask the Government to grant an appropriate title or to pay compensation.
The claimants having only fishing rights the proper title would have been a grant of fishing rights, and those rights were subsequently assessed at $1,400 only, an assessment which the Colonial Secretary considered at the time to be excessive and only accepted because he thought the real owners of the fishing rights had been badly treated by their fraudulent relatives.
Para. 31 to 33.
The purchase by the petitioners was speculative and cannot be compared with a purchase of land held under an established title.
The petitioners are only suffering such a loss as any purchaser of property is liable to suffer if it turns out that his title deeds are forgeries.
The Land Court at the time of the judgment in GR12/1902/C.5.0.Extension. It is noted that a receipt for the payment signed by the heads of each of the three branches of the clan in my office on the 30th August, 1904, is attached to the file.
Page 330
05613