HE ARNE J.—Lila Umma and Majeed.
1943Present: Hearne and de Kretser JJ.
LILA UMMA, Appellant and MAJEED, Respondent.
347—D. C. Kandy, 1,074.
Agreement—Transfer of Lands in consideration of marriage—Validity ofagreement without notarial attestation. '
The plaintiff married the defendant and in consideration of thatmarriage the defendant agrAd to transfer two lands to the plaintiff.
Held; that the agreement was valid, although it was not notariallyattested.
Thamby Lebbe v. Jamaldeen (39 N. L. R. 73) followed;
PPEAL from, a judgment of the District Judge of Kandy.
• Cyril E. S. Perera, for plaintiff, appellant.
W. Thambiah, for defendant, respondent.
September 18* 1943. Hearne J.—
The facts relevant to this appeal are, as stated by the trial Judge, asfollows:—“ The plaintiff married the defendant and in considerationof that marriage the defendant agreed to transfer two lands to the plaintiff.
1 39 N. L. R. 457.
JAYETZLEKE J.—Yoosoof and Fernando.
There is no question about the agreement for it is contained in the marriagecertificate. Some question arose as to whether the transfer was totake place within one year or three years of the marriage ….but three years have elapsed since the marriage.” The plaintiff's claimwas dismissed as the agreement was not notarially executed. Thisdecision is in accordance, e.g., with Levvai v. Pakeer Tamby1 and Perera v.Abeydeera1 and at variance with Thamby Lebbe v. Jamaldeen’. Mybrother de Kretser who is associated with me in this appeal has done mybrother Soertsz and me the honour of taking the view that, on the factsof this case, he would prefer to follow Tamby Lebbe v. Jamaldeen (supra).My own view of the matter is settled. In the circumstances the appealis allowed with costs and judgment must be entered for plaintiff withcosts.i
de Kretser J.—I agree.