083-NLR-NLR-V-61-M.-B.-KEPPITIPOLA-KORALE-MAHATMAYA-Appellant-and-H.-JAYATU-et-al-Respondents.pdf
SAJvSONI, J.—Keppitipola Korale Mahalmaya v. Jay aim
327
1957Present: Sansoni, S.M. B. KEPPrrrPOLA KORALE MAHATMAYA, Appellant, and
H. JAYATU et al., Respondents
S. C. 3—O. R. Kegalle, 20415
Court of Requests—Failure of nilakarayas to perform sendees—Nindagama overlord’saction for damages—Issue as to title to Nindagama land—Jurisdiction of theCourt to decide it.
Wien a Nindagama overlord institutes an action in tie Court of Bequestsagainst ruflakarayas for the recovery of tie value of services due in respectof a field belonging to a panguwa, it is competent to tie Court to decide tiequestion of title to tie field although tie plaintiff’s share of the field is worthmore than Bs. 300-
A
1 aPFP.AT. from a judgment of the Court of Bequests, Kegalle.
R. Ghineratne, with B. S. G. RatwaMe, for the plaintiff-appellant.No appearance for the defendants-respondents.
Cur. adv. wilt.
February 6, 1957. Sansoni, J.—
The plaintiff in this action, claimed to he the overlord of a panguwaof the Dodantale Nindagama. He has sued the defendants on the groundthat they failed to perform the services due by them, as Nilakarayasof half share of a field belonging to that panguwa, for the year endingJune, 1953. He claimed Bs. 240 as damages on that account.
The plaintiff pleaded that he was the absolute owner of half share of thefield in question, and alleged that the defendants were the Nilakarayasof the other half share.
The defendants in their respective answers admitted the plaintiff'stitle to a half share of the field. Some denied that there was a failureto perform services, while others denied that the field was subject torajakariya.
When the case came to trial, certain issues were framed, one of thembeing in tbe following terms :—-
(6) Has this Court monetary jurisdiction to entertain this action ?
328
SANSON1, J~.—Beppitipola I£orale J5&aKatmaya v. Jayatu
The learned Commissioner decided to try this issue first as it went tothe root of the case, and heard arguments on it. He subsequentlydelivered his order answering it in the negative. In his order, hestated that it was conceded that the value of the land in disputewas more than Rs. 300. He held that as the question of title was asubstantive issue in the action, the Court had no jurisdiction. He hasfollowed the judgment of Schneider, J., in the case of Wickremcmayakev. Abeynailce but has not referred to any later decisions on this point,presumably because they were not cited to him. That judgment hasbeen referred to but not followed in the later ease of Heenbanda v.Aluviharez, which came before a Divisional Bench. It was there heldthat even though a defence involves consideration of a question whichcould not be made the direct subject matter of a prayer for relief bythe Court, the Court can still deal with and decide the question for thepurpose of deciding whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief heclaims. It follows, therefore, that even though the defendants havenot conceded the plaintiff’s title, it was still open to the plaintiff to provein this action that he was the overlord of the half share of the field, inspite of the fact that this half share was worth more than Rs. 300. Thematter has also been considered by Maartensz, A.J., in Divitotawala v.Keerala?. Maartensz, A.J., in that case disagreed with a judgment ofSchneider, J., where the latter had held that a Court of Requests has nojurisdiction to decide the question of title to a bTindagama where theoverlord sues the tenants for recovery of the value of services. Presu-mably, in the case which came before Sehneider, J., the land was overRs. 300 in value. Maartensz, A.J., followed the judgment of the Divi-sional Bench in HeenbaTida v. Aluvihare (supra) and held that theCourt of Requests had jurisdiction to decide the question of title,.and that the plaintiff-overlord should have proved his title in theaction.
I have no doubt that if these eases had been cited before the learnedCommissioner, he would have held that he had jurisdiction to decide thequestion of title which was in issue between the plaintiff and the defen-dants in this action. I do not think that it makes any difference thatthe plaintiff in this action asks for a declaration that the defendantshold the field subject to rajakariya to the plaintiff. What matters is,that the plaintiff has not in this action sued for a declaration of his titleto a half share of the field, but merely for the value of the serviceswhich he claimed to he due to him as overlord from the defendants astenants of that half share.
IPor these reasons, I set aside the finding of the learned Commissioneron issue (6) and hold that the Court of Requests has jurisdiction toentertain this action. The case must now go back to the lower Courtfor a trial of the remaining issues.
Appeal allowed.
1 (1928) 30 jV. L. B. 158.8 (1929) 31 JV. L. B. 152.
3 (1931) 32 N. L. B. 381.