041-NLR-NLR-V-05-KARLINA-v.-MANIMAL.pdf
( 138 )
nun.
March 20,
KARLINA v. MANIMAL.C. R., Galle, 1,341.
Receipt in full settlement—Admissibility of evidence lo explain it.
Whore a creditor granted a receipt which purported to acknowledge" a sum of Bs. 60 in full satisfaction of the Bs. 100 due " and to dischargethe debtor from the debt,—
Held per Lawbis, J.—That it was competent to the creditor toprove that he granted the receipt without understanding its con-tents.'
A
CTION on a joint and several bond dated 25th May, 1891,granted by the two defendants to the first plaintiff, wife of
the second plaintiff, for Rs. 200, payable without interest withinthree years.Plaintiff claimed a balance sum due thereon.. The
second defendant pleaded payment of his share of the debt, andproduced a receipt under the hand of the first plaintiff in theseterms: “ I, Karlina, declare to have received from Manimal, one” of the debtors in the said debt bond, a sum of Bs. 60, in full“ satisfaction of the Rs. 100 due from him and discharge him from“ this debt.”
( 139 )
Plaintiff contended that it was open to her to explain thereceipt. The District Judge framed the following issue: “ Does" receipt A exempt the second defendant from further liability? ”
After hearing the evidence offered in explanation of the receipt,which the second defendant objected to, the Court found thatplaintiff did not intend to give defendant this receipt in fulldischarge of the debt.
The second defendant appealed.
Samarawikrama, for appellant.—It was irregular bn the part ofthe Court below to have admitted evidence to contradict or varythe meaning of the words of the receipt. The receipt is evidenceof a contract to accept a smaller sum than was clue in satisfactionof the entire debt. D. C., Chilaw, 1,374, repoi-ted in 2 N. L. R. 306.is no authority in justification of the District Judge’s ruling thatthe receipt afforded evidence “ only of a fact and not a contract.”and that therefore “ the rule that parol evidence is inadmissible to“ vary its terms does not apply." Plaintiff cannot qualify the.receipt by saying “ We did not mean what we said.” In fact thevery judgment quoted by the other side says so. In that judg-ment the words “ in full discharge ” mean that the sum paid andaccepted in full discharge was really the full amount, of the debt.The facts of the present case are different. The plaintiff was toldby the notary that the terms of her receipt would operate as acomplete discharge. The case relied on- by the District Judge isnot' applicable to the circumstances of the present case.
Bawa, for respondent.—There is nothing to distinguish thisreceipt from that in 2 N. L. R. 306. But it is unnecessary torely on that judgment. Proviso 1. section 2, of the Evidence Actenables the plaintiffs to prove that that document was signed undera mistake of fact. The judge has found on the facts, and thatjudgment is not appealable from without the leave of the Court.There is another important point which invalidates the receipt.It is not- competent for the wife to discharge the debt, because allmovable property—and this is: movable property—vests in thehusband. Here the wife only signed the receipt, the husbandsigning in attestation only. The evidence is clear in that parti-cular. The attestation merely vouches for the signature of thewife without acquiescing in her act. The appellant appeals1 onthe law only that the evidence could not be admitted. Once thatevidence is admitted, it becomes a question of fact, and theappellant has no leave.
Cur. adr. vult.
mi-
March 26.
( 140 )
1901.
March 2<i.
26th March, 1901. Lawrik, J —
The plaintiff sued on a bond executed by two defendants, andin the plaint credited them with a payment of Rs. 150, for whichhe said he had given a receipt about two months before aotion.The second defendant alone entered appearance, and he pleadedpayment of his share, and stated that he held a receipt which'discharged him from the debt. The mere production of thereceipt, though the signature was admitted did not prove anabsolute discharge.
Xo replication was filed. The Commissioner framed this issue;" Does receipt A exempt second defendant from further lia-“ bility? ” Evidence was led, and it was proved that the plaintiffhad signed the receipt without understanding its contents. TheCommissioner especially finds that she did not give the receiptin full discharge of the debt.
The plaintiff gives the defendant credit for a larger sum thanthe latter alleges he paid, or than is mentioned in the receipt.
The judgment is right, and must be affirmed.