059-NLR-NLR-V-22-CHARLES-v.-BABA-et-al.pdf
( 189 )
Preamt: Schneider J.
CHARLES v. BABA el al.
62—C. B. Balapitiya, 12,978.
Agreement to pay sixteen bushels of paddy for use of certain paddy field—. No notarial wiling—Action to recover value of paddy—Ordinance
No. 21 of 1887.
Plaintiff alleged that defendant had the use and occupation of acertain paddy field promising to deliver to him sixteen bags ofpaddy or their value Rs. 80.
Held, that as the consideration was not a share of the crop, buta certain quantity of paddy independent of what the crop shouldbe, the action was not maintainable in the absence of a notariallyexecuted agreement.
Croos-Dabrera (with him Balasingham), for-defendants, appellants,relied on He Silva v. Thelenis.1
J.S. Jayawardene (with him Jayamckreme), for plaintiff,respondent.
August 23, 1920. Schneider J.—
In this action the plaintiff sought to recover from the defendantsa sum of Rs. 80, alleging that the defendants had the use and occupa-tion of certain paddy fields from the plaintiff, promising and under-taking to deliver to the plaintiff, sixteen bags of paddy or their valueRs. 80. The defendants denied the agreement, and also plaintiff’sright to the field. The issue framed and tried was “ can plaintiffmaintain this action.” The meaning of this issue was that theagreement upon which the plaintiff sued was not embodied in anotarially executed document as required by Ordinance No. 7 of1840. The learned Commissioner has given judgment for plaintiffas prayed for, and disposed of this issue with the remark that it wasa frivolous one and should not have been raised. He thought thatthe agreement upon which the plaintiff founded his action camewithin the provisions of section 1 of Ordinance No. 21 of 1887. Thisview is not correct. The contracts or agreements contemplated inthat section are those where the consideration is that the cultivatorshall give to the owner of the land a share of the crop or producethereof. It is quite clear that in this case the consideration was npta share of the crop, but a certain quantify of paddy or its valueindependently of what the crop might be. This case is entirelywithin the ratio decidendi of the case of He Silva v. Thelenis.1
I therefore allow the appeal, with costs, and dismiss plaintiff’saction, with costs.
Appeal allowed.
1 3 C.W. R. 130.
1920.