037-NLR-NLR-V-66-M.-A.-A.-DE-SILVA-Appellant-and-M.-ALI-MOHAMED-and-another-Respondents.pdf
de SUva v. Mohamed
165
1964 Present: Abeyesundere, J., and Sri Skanda Rajah, J.M. A. A. DE SILVA, Appellant, and M. ALI MOHAMED and another,
Respondents
S. C. 137 (Inty.) and 356—D. G. Nuwara Eliya, 4518
Money Lending Ordinance—Section 8—Booh of accounts—Entries therein—Require-ment of words as well as numerals.
In the book of accounts kept by the plaintiffs, who were carrying on money-lending business, the accounts were specified only in numerals and not in words-
1 (1918) 5 C. W. R. 181.
2 (1932) 12 G. L. R. 168.
166
ABEYESUXDERE, J.-—de Silva v. Mohamed
Held, that the book was not kept in accordance with the provisions of section8 (1) of the Money Lending Ordinance. Accordingly, the plaintiffs were notentitled to enforce a claim in respect of any transaction in relation to whichthe default was made.
J/^PPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Nuwara Eliya.
TV. Jayeivardene, Q.G., with S. Sharvananda, for the Defendant-Appellant.
G. WikramanayaJce, Q.G., with C. Iianganalhan, for the Plaintiffs -Respondents.
April 29, 1964. Abeyesundere, J.—
The plaintiffs sued the defendant for the recovery of certain sums ofmoney lent by them to him and the interest thereon. One of the pleasraised on behalf of the defendant is that the book of account producedby the plaintiffs has not been kept in accordance with the provisions ofsection 8 (1) of the Money Lending Ordinance and that therefore theplaintiffs cannot enforce their claim. The aforesaid section providesthat the items and transactions incidental to the account shall be clearlystated “ in plain words and numerals”. In my view the quotedexpression means in the context of the said section that wherever it isfeasible to do so the description of the items and transactions incidentalto the account must be in plain words and numerals. The purpose ofsuch provision is to eliminate or minimize the possibility of fraudulentalterations or interpolations.
In the book of account produced by the plaintiffs the accounts arespecified only , in numerals and not in words. I therefore hold that thebook of account produced by the plaintiffs has not been kept in accordancewith the provisions of the aforesaid section and that by virtue ofsubsection (2) of the said section 8 the plaintiffs are not entitled to enforcethe claim that they have pleaded in their plaint.
I allow the appeal and dismiss the action of the plaintiffs. The appel-lant is entitled to his costs both here and in the Court of trial.
Sri Skanda Rajah, J.—
In my view section 8 (1) of the Money Lending Ordinance requires •that the amount of every transaction should be written both in wordsand numerals.
Besides, in this case the original book of account alleged to have beenkept by one of the plaintiffs in Urdu has not been produced. Whathas been produced is said to be a ledger which was entered on theinformation supplied by the plaintiff who kept the book of account
SRI SKANDA RAJAH, J.—Dharmaratne Thero v. Officer-in-Charge 367
NittamJbuwa Police
in Urdu to the Kanakapulle and entered by the latter in Tamil. TheDay Book has not been produced. The Book that has been producedis not, in my view, a regular account that has been kept asrequired by section 8 (1). This view derives support from thejudgment of Gratiaen, J., in S. G. No. 119 of 1954, D. C. Kandy 16020(S. C. Minutes of 14.2.1956).
For each of these reasons the appeal should be allowed and theplaintiffs’ action dismissed with costs in both Courts.
Appeal allowed.