129-NLR-NLR-V-53-GALAGODA-Appellant-and-WIJESINGHE-.-Respondents.pdf
S72
PULLiE J.—Galagoda v. Wijesinghe .
1950Present : Pulle J.
GAEAGODA. Appellant, and WIJESINGHE et al., RespondentsS. G. 76—C. R. Kandy, 3,668
Rural Courts—Exclusive Jurisdiction—Scope of—Rural Courts Ordinance, No. 12of 1945, as amended by Ordinance No. 13 of 1945—Sections 9 and 11.
Where there is no Bural Court within the territorial limits of a Court ofBequests, an action may be instituted in such Court of Bequests if the cause ofaction arose within the local limits of the jurisdiction of that Court, even thoughif jurisdiction depends solely on residence of the defendant a Bural Court wouldhave exclusive jurisdiction to try the case.
^^SlPPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Kandy.
H. W. Jayewardene, for the plaintiff appellant.
T. B. Dissanayake, for the 1st and 2nd defendants respondents.
Gut. adv. vult.
November 28, 150. Pullb J.—
The question which arises for determination in this appeal is whetherthe learned Commissioner of Requests was right in holding that the subject-matter of the action was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RuralCourt. The plaintiff-appellant as Basnayake Nilame and trustee of NathaDewale, situated at Kandy, instituted- this action for the recovery ofRs. 159 as damages for the failure on the part of the two defendantsrespondents in the years 1946 and 1947 to render to the Dewale atKandy the services due from them as paraveni nilakarayas.
Admittedly the two defendants reside outside the limits which consti-tute the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Requests of Kandy. Thefirst defendant resides at Kurunegala and the second at Wattegama. If
PUUjE J.—(JaUigoda v. Wijesinghe
573
jurisdiction depended solely on residence, then the Court of Requests ofRandy could not entertain the action and to reach this result it was notnecessary to have recourse to the provisions of the Rural Courts Ordinance,No. 12 of 1945, read with the Village Tribunals Amendment Ordinance,No. 13 of 1945.
The contention on behalf of the appellant is that the cause of action wasthe failure to perform the services at Kandy. It being assumed that thereis no Rural Court within the territorial limits of which the Dewale falls,the argument proceeds that the jurisdiction of the Court of Requests re-mains unaffected. I shall deal with this argument first and later considerwhether there is any substance in the point relied on by the Commissionerthat where a paraveni nilakaraya defaults in the performance of services itis for the trustee of the temple to enforce his claim for damages in the placewhere the nilakaraya resides.
In my opinion sections 9 and 11 of the Rural Courts Ordinance shouldbe read as follows. If residence is the ground on which jurisdiction ispleaded, then the Rural Court will have jurisdiction ousting that of theCourt of Requests within the limits of which that place of residenceis situated. Similarly, if the place where a cause of action has arisen isthe ground on which jurisdiction is pleaded, then the Court of Requestshaving jurisdiction over that place will be ousted by the Rural Courthaving jurisdiction over the same place. In reading section 11 exclusivejurisdiction should be understood in relation to a Court of Requests or aDistrict Court whose territorial limits embrace the whole or part of thelimits of a Rural Court. A different interpretation would lead to situa-tions which could never have been in the contemplation of the Legis-lature. Suppose a creditor in Colombo has two debtors jointly and sever-ally liable on a cause of action which has arisen in Colombo. Suppose,further, one of the debtors resides within the jurisdiction of a RuralCourt in the Eastern Province and the other- within the jurisdiction ofa Rural Court in the North-Central Province, then in the interpretationcontended for by the respondents the jurisdiction of the Court of Requestsof Colombo would be ousted, and the creditor will have to seek his remedyby filing one action in one of the two Rural Courts or two separate actions,one in each Rural Court. Again, suppose in the present case the twodefendants were residing at Kandy and the cause of action had arisenwithin the jurisdiction of a Rural Court sitting 200 miles away fromKandy, is one constrained to interpret sections 9 and 11 of the Ordinanceto mean that the jurisdiction of the Court of Requests of Kandy wasousted in favour of the distant Rural Court ? I am not prepared to placean interpretation on section 11 which would lead to these manifestlyoppressive results.
Finally, I come to the question whether on the facts pleaded by theplaintiff the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Courtof Requests of Kandy. The learned Commissioner states, “ In claims ofthig nature, the plaintiff must seek the debtors who live, according to hisown plaint, in places outside the jurisdiction of this Court and withinthe jurisdiction of Rural Courts ”. If the learned Commissionerintended to find that the damages flowing from a breach of an obligation
574
NAGALINGAM J.—Rasiah n. Tambirajah
must be sued for in the place where the obligor resides, then with respect,I cannot agree with him. The cause of action in the present case was theneglect too perform a duty at Kandy and that was sufficient to conferjurisdiction on the Court of Requests. Vide the case of Pleas Pol v. Ladyde Soysa et al. 1 which was approved by the Privy Council 2 in'the samecase.
I set aside the decree appealed from and remit the case for trial on itsmerits. The appellant will have the costs of appeal. All other costs willbe costs in the cause.
Decree set aside.