121-NLR-NLR-V-53-CHRISTIE-Appellant-and-MOHAMED-BHAI-Respondent.pdf
1952
Christie o. Mohamed Bhai
Present : Rose C.J.
CHRISTIE, Appellant and MOHAMED BHAI, Respondent
S. C. 192—C. R. Nuwara Eliya, 18,656
’iinoT—Contract—Loan—Benefit to minor—Onus of proof.
In regard to the liability of a minor to repay a loan, the emus of proof iiminor to show that he has received no benefit. 1
1 (1902) $ N. L.R. 314.
526
on the
526
ROSE C.J.-—Christie v. Mohamed Bhai
.^^.PPEAXj from a judgement of the Court of Requests, Nuwara Eliya.
V. S. A. Pullenayagam, with L. FEkanayake, for the defendantappellant.
T.B. Dissanayake, for the plaintiff respondent.
»Cur. adv. vult.
February 29, 1952. Rose C.J.—
In this case all that matters turns upon the liability of a minor torepay a loan together with legal rate of interest.
It appears that on a previous occasion the plaintiff-respondent hadadvanced money to the appellant which the latter had repaid. On thepresent action an advance of Rs. 250 was made on which interest at therate of 18 per cent, (which is the permissible legal rate of interest) waspayable.
The appellant in evidence stated that he had employed the money forthe purpose of a loan to a friend. This friend was not called and thelearned Commissioner disbelieved (in my opinion rightly) the appellanton this point. It appears that the appellant at the material time wasemployed as a clerk on an estate on a salary of Rs. 75 per month and anallowance of Rs. 60, having previously been a “ creeper ” on the sameestate at a salary of Rs. 45 per month.
It seems to me that in all the circumstances of this case the loan mustbe taken to have been ex facie beneficial to the minor. The onus there-fore lay upon the minor to displace this presumption. He failed to do so.I am therefore of opinion that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled tosucceed. As is pointed out by Mr. Balasingham (at page 708 in Volume IIof his book on the Haws of Ceylon) in the case of a loan the onus of proofis on the minor to show that he has received no Bepefit.
For these reasons the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.