051-NLR-NLR-V-29-JALATPEDIGE-ABADDA-v.-VEDADUREYALAGEY-ABADDA.pdf
( 255 )
Present: Schneider J. and Maartensz A.J.JALATPEDIGE ABADDA v. VEDADUREYALAGEY ABADDA.
1—D, C. Kurunegala, 11J>74.
Buddhist Temporalities—Costs—Personal liability of trustee—OrdinanceNo. 8 of 1905, s. SO.
Section 30 of the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance exempts atrustee from personal liability for costs only 'where he is sued underthe name and style of trustee in ‘respect of any act done bona fideunder the powers vested in him under the Ordinance.
^^PPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Kurunegala..
James Josepht for plaintiff, appellant.
H. V. Perera, for defendant, respondent.
July 29, 1927. Schneider J.—
A question on the interpretation to be given to section 80 of the*Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance, No. 8 of 1905, is raised by this*appeal. The plaintiff in this action sued the defendants in this*action in action No. 9,735 of the District Court of Kurunegala,.describing himself as the trustee of the Medagama and Verellaviharas. His action was dismissed with costs. There was no*further direction with regard to these costs. In execution of that-order for costs the present defendants obtained writ and seized!certain property belonging to the plaintiff in this action. The-plaintiff claimed the property seized. His claim was dismissed andhe brought this present action, under the provisions of section 247'of the Civil Procedure Code. His contention was that the order for*costs was not against him personally and that his personal propertywas not liable to be seized in execution of a writ for the payment orthose costs. The learned District Judge held against the plaintiff*upon this contention and dismissed his present action, also withcosts, and he has appealed.
I think the learned District Judge was right in holding againstthe plaintiff. He refers to the case of Maraliya v, Qoonesekera.1That case is useful as pointing to the well-recognized general principle'that a person suing or being sued in an action, although he describes*himself or be described as a trustee, is liable personally in costs.-That principle is conceded by Mr. Joseph, who appeared for thoj
1 {1921) 23 N. L. R. 281.
i wr+
( 266 )
1987.' plaintiff-appellant in this action; but he submitted vthatfi.-the * effect•flci~n>BB of section 80 of the Buddhist Temporalities Ordin&bce – was toJ.exempt a trustee from personal liability in costs whether he be
plaintiff or defendant. I am unable to uphold that* contention. AsAbadda v, I read that section the words “ shall not be personally liable'in- costsJa^Abaddft re^er onty those cases where trustees appointed- under 'the pro-visions of the Ordinance are sued under the name and style of trusteesunder the Ordinance, and T read the section as enacting that thetrustees shall not be personally liable where they are being sued inrespect of any act which they had done bona fide under* any of thepowers or authorities vested in them under the1 Ordinance. Thesepowers are very large ones as will appear .from the provisions , ofsection 20 and the following sections./
In my opinion, the appeal must be dismissed with costs.
Maartexsz A.J.—I agree.
Appeal dismissed.