The Gazette 1983

GAZETTE

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1983

than the fact that the Act established a body to be called the Representative Church Body (RCB) the actual method by which this was done need not concern us here. In addition, the Act set up a body called the Commissioners for Church Temporalities in Ireland and vested all Church of Ireland property in that body from the 1st January 1871. The Act provided that until the 31st December 1874, this body could exercise the powers of the Ecclesiastical Commis- sioners under the Act of 1833, a point to which we shall return later. The brief of the Commissioners for Church Temporalities was to realise the assets of the Church of Ireland which had been vested in them under the Irish Church Act. In doing this, they had tp deal, broadly speaking, with three types of property:— 1. property which the Church of Ireland wished and was empowered to reacquire under Sections 25 to 28 of the 1869 Act; The Act provided a system whereby both tenanted land and rent charges could be purchased, either by payment of the entire purchase price, or by the payment of not less than 25% of the price, with the balance being secured by way of mortgage in favour of the Commissioners. The Act contained no pro- visions requiring registration in the Land Registry, the entire concept of which was at the time in its infancy/ Both the purchase deeds and the mortgages were registered in the Registry of Deeds. None of the orders vesting property in the RCB under Sections 25 to 28 of the Act were registered in the Registry of Deeds. The Commissioners for Church Temporalities replaced the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and took over both their functions and their premises, 24 Upper Merrion Street. In due course, when they were in turn replaced by the Land Commission, under the Irish Church (Amendment) Act of 1881, that august body took up residence in Upper Merrion Street. The Registration of Title Acts So far, we have used the word land quite loosely, but what was "land" for the purposes of the 1891 Act and what was the situation where rents and rent charges were concerned? Lawyers being the same then as they are now, it was not long before it fell to the Court to decide whether the title to a property on which a rent was charged was or was not compulsorily/Tegisterable. The case concerned was Keogh Grantor: Kettle Grantee s and the issue revolved, not around the Irish Church Act, but around the Redemption of Rents (Ireland) Act of 1891. The question to be determined was whether or not a fee farm rent was "land" within the meaning of the 1891 Local Registration of Title Act. Madden J, .who had been Attorney General for Ireland and had piloted the Registration of Title Act 2. tenanted land; 3. rent charges — (a) rents under the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' fee farm grants created under the 1833 Act; (b) tithe rent charges under the 1838 Act.

through Westminster, held that the rent was land within the meaning of the Act and that, as such, the title to the freehold land was compulsorily register- able. Having decided the point, he commented that: "Public money to a large and increasing extent has been advanced on the security of holdings and it became a matter of public and financial importance that the title to those holdings should be kept clear from doubt or complication." By Section 51 of the Land Act of 1927, the categories of freehold land which were compulsorily registerable were extended to cover cases in which:— 1. the purchase annuity has been redeemed; 2. the land had been vested by the Land Commission for cash. In 1946, the issues discussed in Keogh Grantor came before Martin Maguire, J. in the case of In re Reeves Estates . 6 Here, the issue related to a rent purchased under the Irish Church Act. The facts were that, in 1835, the Bishop of Kildare and the Ecclesias- tical Commissioners granted land toTuthill and Reeves and their heirs and assigns for ever, subject to a perpetual yearly rent which might be increased or diminished under the 1833 Act. In 1894, the rent was purchased from the Land Commission for £ 153.13s.4d. with £790.5s.0d. being secured by way of an instalment mortgage, which was duly paid off. Maguire, J., relying on In re Keogh , held that the rent was land within the meaning of the Registration of Title Act and that, as such, the title to the lands granted by the 1835 Fee Farm Grant was compulsorily registerable. In his book, "Registration of Title", Mr. McAllister points out that land registered under Section 51 of the Land Act 1927, while it was in force, was not subject to the provisions of Section 23 and Section 25 of the 1891 Act. The point was not argued at all before Maguire, J. in the Reeves Case and there is no reference to it in his judgment. The logic of the practice to which Mr. McAllister refers appears to be that Section 51 of the 1927 Act did not amend Section 22 of the 1891 Act. Rather it says that certain land was compulsorily registerable and then went on to provide that, after registration, the 1891 Act would apply to such land. And so the topic rested until 1964, when Mr. C. J. Haughey, then Minister for Justice, secured the passing by the Oireachtas of the Registration of Title Act. This Act came into operation on the 1st January 1967 and, for convenience, this date is referred to as the Operative Date. A comparison of Section 23 of the 1964 Act with Section 22 of the 1891 Act is interesting, for the 1964 provisions are con- siderably wider than the 1891 provisions. Following Section 51 of the 1927 Act, no reference is made in the 1964 Act to the land being subject to a charge for the security of an advance. The 1964 Act continued to define the Irish Church Act as a land purchase act. However, the definition of "land" was widened to include incorporeal hereditaments. The loophole referred to by Mr. McAllister has been closed since 1st January 1967 by bringing the provisions of Section 25 of the 1891 Act. The point was not argued Act into the one Act.

6