137-NLR-NLR-V-66-B.-SOOTING-and-others-Appellants-and-R.-A.-H.-PERERA-Respondent.pdf
H. N. G. FERNANDO, J.—Sooting v. Perera
575
1963Present: H. N. G. Fernando, J.B. SOOTING and others, Appellants, and R. A. H. PERERA,
Respondent
8. G. 248 of 1961—C. R. Gampaha, 8040/A
Rural Court—Exclusive jurisdiction—Burden of proof—Rural Courts Ordinance,e*. 9, 11, 12.
By section 9 of the Rural Courts Ordinance, read with section 11, the RuralCourt has exclusive jurisdiction where the demand of a plaintiff does not exceedRs. 100. The by^ftn of showing that the claim comes within the jurisdiction ofa Court of Requests lies on the plaintiff, and when he fails to discharge thatburden the Commissioner should act under section 12 of the Rural CourtsOrdinance.
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Gampaha.
S. G. E. Rodrigo, for the Defendants-Appellants.
8. W. Jayasuriya, for the Plaintiff-Respondent.
March 19, 1963. H. N. G. Fbbnando, J.—
The Plaintiff in this action sued the Defendants for the owner’s share ofthe yala-orop of a paddy field which had been cultivated for that seasonby the Defendants.
One of the defences taken in the answer was that the claim to a share ofthe produce was one which fell entirely within the exclusive jurisdictionof the Rural CourJ. By Section 9 of the Rural Courts Ordinance, readwith Section 11, the Rural Court has exclusive jurisdiction where thedemand of a Plaintiff does not exceed Rs. 100.
The question of jurisdiction was expressly put in issue at the trial. Tfl^first witness called by the Plaintiff was a former owner of this field.According to him the Maha and Yala yield together will be about 20beras. He again said that during the yala season the yield would beabout 12—15 beras and that one bera is worth about Rs. 7 or Rs. 8. Itwas common ground that the share rightly due to the Plaintiff was ahalf-share. Assuming, therefore, on the evidence of the Plaintiff’s firstwitness that the crop for the season was 15 beras the maximum value ofthe share due to the Plaintiff would have been only Rs. 60. The Plaintiffalsc claimed the produce from eight coconut trees for the period Februaryto October 1960. In Lis plaint he had valued the nuts at Rs. 65, butthere was, in the evidence of three witnesses called for the Plaintiff, noestimate whatever as to the nature of the trees or the extent of theproduce therefrom or the value of nuts in the locality.
576
H. N. G. FERNANDO, J.—Sooting v. Perera
It seems to me, therefore, that when the Plaintiff’s ease was closed theevidence fell completely short of establishing that the claim of thePlaintiff involved a sum exceeding Rs. 100. Indeed, I feel bound toobserve that when the learned Commissioner ultimately gave judgmentfor the Plaintiff in this case he completely ignored the evidence andresorted to the much too facile expedient of taking figures from the plainteven though those figures were not even mentioned in the evidence of thePlaintiff’s witnesses. The burden of showing that the»claim came withinthe jurisdiction of the Court of Requests lay on the Plaintiff and when hefails to discharge that burden the learned Commissioner should haveacted under Section 12 of the Rural Courts Ordinance.
The appeal is allowed with costs, and the decree"!5^*pealed from is setaside. It will be open to the Plaintiff, if he so chooses, to institute pro-ceedings in the Rural Court. The Plaintiff must pay to the Defendantsthe costs in the lower Court as well.
Appeal allowed.