Malani u. Somcipala and Another (KulatUaka. J.)
and their signatures or thumb impressions should beobtained. Vide decision of Soertsz, J in Punchi Banda vs PunchiBandafsupra).
It is evident from the proceedings that in recording thesettlement all precautionary measures Soertsz, J. referred toabove have been, observed. The sum agreed upon by theparties, the manner in which payment sho.uld be made to theplaintiff by the defendant have been clearly laid down inClause l(i). Provisions for the issue of writ in favour of theplaintiff in default of payment by the defendant have beenincluded in clause l(ii to vii) of the settlement and. Clauses 2and 5 deal with the manner in which the transfer should beexecuted in favour of the defendant after payment of the agreedsum by the defendant to the plaintiff. Clauses 3 and 4 deal withas to how the settlement should be given effect to in the eventof death of either party.
We do not see any deficiency or irregularity in the tenor ofthe settlement. Hence, the contention raised by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner regarding the tenor of the settlementshould necessarily fail.
For these reasons we dismiss the application for revisionwith costs.
WEERASURIYA, J. – I agree.
Application dismissed.