007-NLR-NLR-V-23-SUNNYGAMA-CO.-LTD-v.-FONSEKA.pdf
t 20 V
1921.
:
Preset*: De Sampeyo J. and Schneider AJ.SUNNTOAMA 00., LTD., v. FONSEKA29—D. 0. AegoBa, 5,2SJ.
Jurisdiction—Safe o/ Zand eftuate in KegaUa—Deed executed in Colombo
—FaM'jwre to driver possession—Action for relief in KegaUa,
Defendant sold a land situated in Kegalla by a deed executedin Colombo, but failed to ddiver possession. Plaintiffs sued himintb.e District Court of Kegalla claiming relief foriailureto deliver.
On a plea as to jurisdiction, held, District Court of Kegalla hadjvxisdiotion, as the cause of action, viz., the defendant’s failure tof’olfil his obligation, arose within the District Court of Kegalla.
t
f’J’.HE facts appear from the judgment.
AUah Drieberg, K.O. (with JElian Perera), for plaintiffs, appellants.
Canakaralne (with B. F. de Silva), for defendant, respondent.
September 30,1921. De Sampayo J.—
I think this appeal is entitled to succeed. The defendant by deeddated May 8,1919, and executed in Colombo, sold and conveyed tothe plainkfi company a land of the extent of 20 acres 1 rood and 11sperohesJ The land is situated in Kegalla within the jurisdiction ofthe District Court of Kegalla. It appears that the plaintiff companyalready held deeds for 4 aores out of the 20 acres sold by the defend-ant, and were in possession of that acreage. They brought thisaction against the defendant alleging that, exoept the 4 acres, ofwhich they were already in possession, the defendant had failed todeliver possession of the balance in fulfilment of his obligation, andthey claimed certain relief on that account. The action was broughtin the District Court of Kegalla. An objection appears to havebeen taken on behalf of the defendant that the District Court ofKegalla had no jurisdiction, and that the plaintiff company should,if at all, sue in the District Court of Colombo, where the deed wasexecuted, and where, therefore, the contract was made. Thisobjection 'ires upheld by the District Judge, and the plaintiffs’addon was dismissed.
The Distriot Judge appears to have relied upon a judgment ofmy own, which is oited, namhly, Kittoni v. Fernando,1 but the DistrictJudge appears to have misunderstood what was decided in thatcase. My judgment does not support the. ground on which the
‘ 2 O. W. S. 187.
( 21 )
District Judge tfesraisBed the plaintiffs’ action, but, apart from, any 1921.authority, it is fery plainon the, face of the provisions of the Civil Db.£^aYOProcedure Code that the District Court of Kegalla had jurisdiction E j. AY°
. in this cue. It may be that the Colombo District Court also had
jurisdiction, being the Court where the contract was made, but thecause of action certainly arose within the District Court of Kegalla,. Fonaekafor the plaintiffs’ action was founded upon the defdhdant’s failureto fulfil his obligation by delivering possession of what he sold tothe plaintiff company.
I think the appeal should be allowed, and the case sent back fortrial in due course. The plaintiff company should get the costs ofthe appeal.
Sohneidhb A.J.—I agree.
Appeal allowed.