BASNAYAKE J.—Kulanthavelu o. Muthusamy Aiyar
1950Present : Basnayake J.
KULANTHAVELU, Appellant, and MUTHUSAMYAIYAR Respondent
S. C. 72—C. R. Trinoomalec, 8,141
Court of Requests—Appeal—Matters of law not stated in petition of appeal—CivilProcedure Code, s. 383k.
In an action for debt, damage or demand, where there is no right of appealfrom a judgment pronounced in a Court of Bequests except on a matter of law,the Court of Appeal will not hear arguments on matters of law which are notstated in the petition of appeal.
^^.PPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Trincomalee.
C. Thiagalingam, with A. Gnanaprakasam and V. Arulambalam, for the1st defendant-appellant.
H. W. Thambiah, with S. Sharvananda, for the respondent.
February 13, 1950. Basnayake J.—
This is an action by one Soona Muthusamy Aiyar who claims to . bethe officiating priest of the Kadatkarai Pillaiyar Temple against the fiirstdefendant-appellant one Kulanthavelu .who is the manager of the templeand six others who are members of the managing committee of thetemple. The plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of Rs. 120 as wages dueto him for the four months of May, June, July and August, 1948, andfurther wages at Rs. 30 per mensem from September 1, 1948, till paymentin full.
The facts stated by the plaintiff are not contradicted by the defendants.It appears from the uncontradicted evidence of the plaintiff that the
GUNA8EKABA J.—Punchi Singho v. B. H. Perera
managing committee had asked him to continue to officiate as priestof the temple for the months for which he claims wages. It seems to methat on the facts the plaintiff's claim is entitled to prevail.
But Mr. Thambiah for the respondent takes a preliminary objectionto my hearing argument on the facts on the ground that under section833a (1) of the Civil Procedure Code the appellant has no right of appealexcept on a matter of law. He submits that as the matter of law is notstated in the petition of appeal the appellant is not entitled to a hearing.He cites in support the case of Silva v. Zoyea *. • In that case Nihill J.,after referring to some earlier decisions, observes:
“ It is one. of the special rules that there shall be no right of appealfrom any final judgment unless upon a matter- of law – and judicialdecision has determined that this court cannot hear arguments onmatters of law not directly and succinctly stated in the petition ofappeal and I am not prepared to go beyond that.’’
Learned counsel for the appellant confesses that the petition of appealdoes not contain the questions of law he wishes to argue.
I see no reason for departing from the rule stated in the authoritycited by learned counsel for the respondent, and I reject the appeal withcosts.
» W». — MU
KULANTHAVELU, Appellant, and MUTHUSAMY AIYAB Respondent