( 283 )
RAM MENIKA v. LE WISH AMY.
C. B., Badulla, 24,833.
Signature by mark—Civil Procedure Code, s. 159—Proof of words adjacent tothe mark.
Section 159 of the Civil Procedure Code only requires that the markof a person which appears by the evidence in any case to have beenwritten by the- pen of another must be proved to have been so writtenby the authority of the person alleged to have made his mark; but it isnot necessary to expressly prove that the words adjacent to the mark,explaining that it' is the mark of the person who made it, were made atthe request of such person.
N action raised for the recovery of a certain quantity ofpaddy delivered to the defendant was resisted mainly on
the strength of a document which purported to have been madeby the plaintiff, acknowledging receipt of 22 pelas out of the 24lent.
This document was stamped, and on the stamp appeared a x,with the words “mark of Ram Menika thus ” following the x.
The Commissioner (Mr. R. N. Thaine) admitted the receiptafter it was sworn to by the witnesses, and dismissed the plaintiff’snlaim for the 22 pelas, and entered judgment for him for the 2
pelas acknowledged to be still due.
The plaintiff appealed.
Bawa, for appellant.
Cur. adv. vult.
( 284 )
17th June, 1908. Layabd, C.J.—
In this case the plaintiff sued the defendant for the recovery of24 pelas of paddy or the value thereof as stated in the agree-ment filed with his plaint. The defendant pleaded delivery interms of the agreement of 22 pelas of paddy, and admitted that 2pelas were the balance due to plaintiff. The Commissioner hasfound against the plaintiff, holding the defendant had dulydelivered 22 pelas of paddy. The plaintiff appeals from thatjudgment.
There is evidence which, if believed, duly establishes the ..delivery of the paddy. The Commissioner has, however, to agreat extent relied upon the receipt produced by the defendantin arriving at the conclusion that the 22 pelas of paddy were dulydelivered by the defendant. Appellant’s counsel, however, relying on section 159 of the Civil Procedure Code, argued that thereceipt was wrongly admitted in evidence, as it was not establishedthat the words n mark of Bam Menika thus ’’ adjacent.to plaintiff’salleged mark were inserted on it with her authority.
The evidence showis that the receipt was written at Bam Menika’srequest, and was read and explained to her, and that she thenplaced her mark on the stamp. As the receipt was- written anddrawn at her request, and she put her mark to it, the presumptionarises, unless she denies it, that she authorized the recordingon the receipt adjacent to her mark the words intimating that itwas her mark. It is further not shown that those words werewritten after she made her mark on the stamp, and there is noreason why I should presume that they were added without herauthority. Even if such was not the case, I am of opinion, as atpresent advised, that all that section 159 of the Civil Procedurerequires is that the mark of a person which appears by theevidence in any case to have been written by the pen of anothermust be proved to have been so written by the authority of theperson alleged to have made his mark, arid that it is not necessaryto. expressly prove that the words adjacent to the mark explainingthat it is the mark of the person who made it were made at therequest of such person.
I would affirm the judgment of the Commissioner and dismis3the appellant’s appeal with costs.
RAM MENIKA v. LEWISHAMY