101-NLR-NLR-V-71-KALUWA-Appellant-and-CHULARATNE-SILVA-Respondent.pdf
DE KRET8ER, J.—Kaluwa v. Silva
479
1968Present: de Kretser, J.
KALUWA, Appellant, and CHULARATNE SILVA, RespondentS.c: 140167—C. B. MaUde, 15178
Paddy Lands Act, <u amended by Act No. 11 of 1964—Section 8 (2)—Cession of rightsby ande cultivator-—Omission to obtain Commissioner's written sanction—Effect, ’ when the transferor continues to work on the field as paid labourer.
Where an ande cultivator of a paddy land surrenders his ande rights to hislandlord -without obtaining the written sanction of the Commissioner as requiredby section 8 (2) of the Faddy Lands Act, and thereafter works on the field as apaid labourer of the landlord, he is not entitled to.claim an ande share for theperiod during which he worked as paid labourer.
.A.PPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests;'Colombo.
S.K. Sangakara, with Asolca de Z. Qundtmrdena, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
T.B. Dissanayake, with Nalin Abeysekera, for Defendant-Respondent.
October 11, 1968. de Kbetser, J.—
The facts are as follows :—
Plaintiff sues the defendant for damages in Rs. 750. His case is thathe was the ande cultivator of the defendant in respect of the field calledHembanile Kumbura and as such cultivated for the Maha season. Healleges that on 17.3.66 the defendant forcibly removed the crop of theentire field. He says his share would be 60 bushels of paddy valued atRs. 720 and 600 bundles of qtfaw valued at Rs. 30.
480
DE KRETSER, J.—Kaluwa v. Silva
Defendant’s case is that the plaintiff who had been ande cultivator ofthe field from 1956 was as from 3.3.65 only a paid labourer andtherefore not entitled to any share. His evidence is that he had askedplaintiff to redeem mortgage bond 28009 of 9.10.55 as he feared the bondwould be prescribed by 1965 and plaintiff got displeased and voluntarilysurrendered the field together with his ande rights on document D1 of3.3.65.
Plaintiff’s position is that he signed D1 under duress.
The Trial Judge (Mr. Ladduwahetty) found that by D1 the Plaintiffsurrendered of his own free will the field in dispute to the defendanttogether with plaintiff’s ande rights. I am satisfied that that finding offact is correct . The plaintiff has appealed and his Counsel has invitedmy attention to sub-section 2 of section 9 of the Paddy Lands (Amend-ment) Act 11 of 1904, which states “ a tenant-cultivator of any extentof paddy land may , with the written sanction of the commissioner givenafter such inquiries as the commissioner may deem necessary cede hisrights in respect of such extent to his landlord if such landlord is also theowner of such extent. Any cession of such rights made without the writtensanction of the commissioner shall be null ami void. ”
It follows that the cession of rights on D1 was null and void as it wasmade without the written sanction of the commissioner, and if the plain-tiff continued to cultivate the field ignoring the fact that he had given thewriting D1 he could correctly claim in spite of D1 that he was the andecultivator and claim his share. For the very good reason that he wasapparently in blissful ignorance of sub-section 2 of section 9 of 11 of 64,he did not do that for the trial judge finds that after he gave the documentD1 the plaintiff worked as the paid labourer of the defendant because,plaintiff thought it would be a “ disgrace ” not to be associated with thefield he had been cultivating since 1965.
Once he has accepted payment for his labour he cannot-be allowed toclaim an ande share and I therefore dismiss his appeal. He has theconsolation of knowing that in spite of D1 he continues to be the andecultivator of the field. I make no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.