Category / NLR_V_40
WIJEYGOONEWARDENE v. DE SILVA
015-NLR-NLR-V-40-WIJEYGOONEWARDENE-v.-DE-SILVA.pdf MAARTENSZ J.—Wijeygoonewardene v. De Silva. 59 1938Present: Maartensz and Moseley JJ. WIJEYGOONEWARDENE v. DE SILVA. 40—D. C. Kandy, 48,132. Public stand for omnibus—No right of way or user to public—Not a road orstreet—Motor Car Ordinance, No. 20 of 1927. The public are not entitled to a right of way or user over a…
VISALADCHYPILLAI v. SIVAPAKKIAMMAL
031-NLR-NLR-V-40-VISALADCHYPILLAI-v.-SIVAPAKKIAMMAL.pdf 114 Visaladehyjrillai v. Sivapakkiammal. 1938Present: Poyser S.P.J. and Koch J. VISALADCHYPILLAI v. SIVAPAKKIAMMAL. 21—D. C. Trincomalee, 2,121 Prescription—Donation subject to a condition—Trust—Claim by beneficiary— Ordinance No. 22 of 1871, s. 8. Where a deed of gift was subject to the following among other conditions. The said donor shall have the power to sell…
DE SILVA et al. v. SANGANANDA UNANSE et al
047-NLR-NLR-V-40-DE-SILVA-et-al.-v.-SANGANANDA-UNANSE–et-al.pdf 162 SOERTSZ J.—de Silva v. Sangananda Unarise. 1938Present: Abrahams C.J. and Soertsz J. DE SILVA et. al. v. SANGANANDA UNANSE et al. 144-5—D. C. Galle, 34,729. Jus retentionis—Partition action—Bona fide possessor—Right to ' compen-sation—Effect of decree. Where in a partition action compensation for improvements due to abona fide possessor, is determined, he has…
DANAPALA v. WEERAWARDENE
064-NLR-NLR-V-40-DANAPALA-v.-WEERAWARDENE.pdf 244. Danapala v. Weerawardene. 1939 Present: Hearne J. DANAPALA v. WEERAWARDENE. 737—M. C. Colombo, 65,330. Omnibus—Remaining in omnibus parked in public stand—Regulation under Motor Car Ordinance not ultra vires—Power of Court to question validity of regulation—Ordinance No. 20 of 1927, s. 53, reg. 8. • Where a person was charged with having remained…
VELAUTHER et al. v. ARUMOGAM
080-NLR-NLR-V-40-VELAUTHER–et-al.-v.-ARUMOGAM.pdf 305 MAARTENSZ J.—Velauther v. Arutnogam. 1938Present: Maartensz and Hearne JJ. VELAUTHER et al. v. ARUMOGAM. 289—D. C. Jaffna, 9,081. Prescription—Action for declaration of a right to a status—Period oflimitation—Ordinance No. 22 of 1871, s. 11. An action for declaration of a right to a status is barred unless it isbrought within three years…
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, COLOMBO v. MURUGAPPA CHETTIAR
096-NLR-NLR-V-40-MUNICIPAL-COUNCIL,-COLOMBO-v.-MURUGAPPA-CHETTIAR.pdf 370 ABRArlAMS C.J.—Municipal Council, Colombo v. Murugappa Ckettiar. Present: Abrahams C.J. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, COLOMBO v. MURUGAPPA CHETTIAR. 631—2—M. C. Colombo, 17,686. Housing and Town Improvement Ordinance—Offence of re-erection of a build-ing—What amounts to re-erection—Ordinance No. 19 of 1915, s. 5. The expression “ re-erect ” in section 5 of The Housing and TownImprovement…
THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE v. KARUNARATNE
114-NLR-NLR-V-40-THE-PUBLIC-TRUSTEE-v.-KARUNARATNE.pdf KEUNEMAN J.—The Public Trustee v. Karunaratne. 429 Present: Moseley and Keuneman JJ. THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE v. KARUNARATNE. 118—D. C. Kalutara, 19,324. Administrator—Heir in exclusive possession of premises—Right of adminis-trator to sue for rent—Distribution of the estate. An administrator is entitled for purposes of administration to recoverreasonable rent from ad heir in respect of…
MOHAMED MUSTAPHA v. IBRAHIM ALIM
131-NLR-NLR-V-40-MOHAMED-MUSTAPHA-v.-IBRAHIM-ALIM.pdf 478 Mohamed Mustapha v. Ibrahim Alim. 1938 T Present: Poyser S.P-J. and Wijewardene J. MOHAMED MUSTAPHA v. IBRAHIM ALIM. Application for leave to appeal in Kathi Court No. 130-^Board ofKathis. Court No. 67 (206). Muslim. Marriage Registration. Ordinance, No. 27 of 1929, Schedule IN.,part 2, s. 13 (I)—Application for leave to appeal—Right of…
FONSEKA v. FONSEKA
148-NLR-NLR-V-40-FONSEKA-v.-FONSEKA.pdf Fonseka v. Fonseka. 539 1938Present: Moseley and Wijeyewardene JJ. FONSEKA v. FONSEKA S.C. 148—D. C. Colombo, 5,440. Legacy—Payment due at marriage—Delay due to lack of 'funds—Claim for interest—Mora—Roman-Dutch law. by his last will, directed his trustees to fund the income of severalestates and, out of the fund created, to pay each of his…
AVICHCHY CHETTIAR v. PERERA
016-NLR-NLR-V-40-AVICHCHY-CHETTIAR-v.-PERERA.pdf FERNANDO A.J.—Avichchy Chettiar v. Perera. 65 Present; Moseley J. and Fernando A.J. AVICHCHY CHETTIAR v. PERERA. 56—D. C. Negombo, 9,776. Appeal—Failure to add necessary parties as respondents—Exercise oj Supreme Court's discretion—Civil Procedure Code, s. 770. The plaintiff sued the first defendant-respondent to recover a certainsum of money by way of principal and interest…