Category / NLR_V_37
DEUTROM v. DEUTROM et al
017-NLR-NLR-V-37-DEUTROM-v.-DEUTROM-et-al.pdf Deutrom v. Deutrom 91 1935 Present: Akbar J. and Koch A.J. DEUTROM v. DEUTROM et. al. 63—D. C. Colombo, 54,544. Paulian action—Maintenance order in favour of wife—Distress warrant in execution against the husband—Fraudulent transfer of mortgage bondby the husband to avoid payment—Paulian action by wife—No causeof action. Where the plaintiff instituted a Paulian…
PEREIRA v. ABOOTHAHIR
034-NLR-NLR-V-37-PEREIRA-v.-ABOOTHAHIR.pdf Pereira v. Aboothahir. 163 1935Present: Garvin S.PJ. and Maartensz A.J. PEREIRA v. ABOOTHAHIR. 60—D. C. (Inty.) Badulla, 4,652. Writ of possession—Complete and effectual possession given by Fiscal—Subse-quent interruption—Remedy—Civil Procedure Code, s. 325. Where a person has been given complete and effectual possession ofpremises by the Fiscal, the remedy under section 325 of the…
CHETTY v. CHETTY
050-NLR-NLR-V-37-CHETTY-v.-CHETTY.pdf Chetty v. Chetty. 253 1935Present: Poyser and Koch JJ. CHETTY v. CHETTY. 23—D. C. (Inty.) Jaffna, 8,059. Thesawalamai—Malabar inhabitants of Jaffna—Vanii/as settled in Jaffna forthree generations—Governed by Thesawalamai. Where Tamils, belonging to the community known as Vaniyas, hadmade Jaffna their home for three generations and had observed thecustoms followed by other Hindu families,—…
TOUSSAINT v. CECILIA
067-NLR-NLR-V-37-TOUSSAINT-v.-CECILIA.pdf 308 SOERTSZ A.J.—Toussaint v. Cecilia. 1935Present: Soertsz A.J. TOUSSAINT v. CECILIA. 593—P. C. Gampola, 7,522. Brothel—Meaning of term—House of ill-fame—Ordinance No. 5 of 1889, s. 1. A brothel is a house of ill-fame to which men resort for purposes ofprostitution with women, who are to be found in the place or withwomen who…
SOOSAIPILLAI v. VAITALINGAM et al
083-NLR-NLR-V-37-SOOSAIPILLAI-v.-VAITALINGAM–et-al.pdf Soosaipillai v. Vaitalingam. 38i 1935Present: Dalton S.P.J. and Maartensz J. SOOSAIPILLAI v. VAITALINGAM et al. 308—D. C. Jaffna, 3,355. Prescription—Action on joint promissory note—Payment by one co-debtor—Interrupts prescription in favour of the other—English Common Law—of Exchange Ordinance, No. 25 of 1927, s. 97 (3). A payment by one of two joint-debtors on account…
NOOR UMMA v. ABDUL HAMEED
001-NLR-NLR-V-37-NOOR-UMMA-v.-ABDUL-HAMEED.pdf THE NEW LAW REPORTS OF CEYLONVOLUME XXXVII1935Present: Macdonell C.J. and Koch AJ. NOOR UMMA v. ABDUL HAMEED71—D. C. Colombo, 32J2S7 Plaint—Action rei vindicatio—Claim that property is subject to fidei com-missum—Property acquired compulsorily—Amendment of plaint—Declaration^ that money which represents the immovable property isimpressed with fidei commissum—Cause of action not a new one. The plaintiff…
SARAVANAMUTTU v. SITTAMPALAM
018-NLR-NLR-V-37-SARAVANAMUTTU-v.-SITTAMPALAM.pdf 98 AKBAR J.—Saravanamuttu v. Sittampalam. 1934Present: Garvin S.P.J. and Akbar J. SARAVANAMUTTU v. SITTAMPALAM. 220—D. C. Anuradhapura, 1,830. Public servant—Pay-agent of Medical Department—Liability on a note—Public Servants’ (Liability) Ordinance, No. 2 of 1899A pay-agent employed in the service of the Medical Departmentis a public servant within the meaning of section 2 of the…
DE SILVA v. JUWA
035-NLR-NLR-V-37-DE-SILVA-v.-JUWA.pdf GARVIN SJPJ.—De Silva v. Jtitoa. 165 1935Present: Garvin S.PJ. and Maartensz A.J. DE SILVA v. JTJWA. 40—D. C. Tangalla, 3,234. Abatement of an action rei vindicatio—Subsequent action for partition—Effective bar—Civil Procedure Code, s. 403. The abatement of an action for declaration of title to land is a bar againstthe institution of an action…
ABDUL CADER et al. v. AHAMADU LEBBE AMRIKAR et al
051-NLR-NLR-V-37-ABDUL-CADER–et-al.-v.-AHAMADU-LEBBE-AMRIKAR–et-al.pdf Delivered by LORD ROCHE.—Abdul Coder v. Atlantadu Lebbe Marikar. 257 [In the Privy Council.] 1935 Present: Lord Alness, Lord Mangham, and Lord Roche. ABDUL CADER et al. v. AHAMADU LEBBEMARIKAR et al. Maradona Mosque Ordinance—Action for declaration that a meeting of thecongregation was irregularity held—Action brought by the trustees—Right of plaintiffs to institute…
PANDITHAN CHETTIAR v. SINGHAPPUHAMY
068-NLR-NLR-V-37-PANDITHAN-CHETTIAR-v.-SINGHAPPUHAMY.pdf 310 SOERTSZ A.J.—Pandithan Chettiar t;. Singhappuhamy. 1935Present: Soertsz A.J. PANDITHAN CHETTIAR v. SINGHAPPUHAMY. 129—C. R. Kurunegala, 8,802. Surety—Party to mortgage bond—Renunciation of benefits—Action on bond—Subsequent claim against surety—Civil Procedure Code, s. 34. Where a person bound himself as surety to a mortgage bond “renouncingall benefits to which a surety is legally entitled in…