079-NLR-NLR-V-29-MENIK-ETANA-v.-KIRI-APPU.pdf
( 881 )
Present: Fisher C.J. and Drieberg J.ivfENIK ETANA v. KIRI APPTJ.
266—D. C. Kandy, 32,791.
Laesio enormis—Sale of land—Consideration being a promise to support—
Certainty of price essential.
A sale of land cannot be set aside on the ground of laesio cnormis,where a part of the consideration for the sale was a promise by thevendee to support the vendor.
In a claim for relief on such ground the price must be certainand fixed.
PPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Kandy.
Garvin, for plaintiff, appellant.
H. V. Perera (with Rajapakse), for defendant, respondent.
December 13, 1927. Diueberg J.—
The appellant alleged that she sold to the respondent by deed ofFebruary 7, 1920, lands worth Rs. 900. The consideration statedin the deed was Rs. 300. The appellant pleaded that no considera-tion passed and that there was an informal agreement that therespondent should support 'her and re-transfer the lands to herwhenever demanded. She prayed for a declaration that therespondent was.holding the lands in trust for her, or in the alternativethat the deed be set aside on the ground of laesio enormis.
I
1927
1027
Dribberg
J.
Mentis Etanar.
Kiri Appn
( 382 )
The respondent denied these averments and stated that he paid theprice of Rs. 300.
At the trial the appellant did not press the question of the trust.There was therefore only the claim on the grounds of laeaio c^orm/s,and the learned District Judge held that such a claim could not bemade as the appellant did not allege that she was not aware of thereal value of the land, and, further, that on the averments in theplaint there was sufficient consideration. He therefore dismissedthe action. The appeal is from this judgment.
The judgment of the learned District Judge is right. Thetransaction as it was described in the plaint was not a sale; accord-ing to the plaint no sum of Rs. 300 passed, nor apparently was itintended to pass; it was a transfer in trust for the appellant, andthe doctrine of laesio cnormi8 has no application in such a case(Fernando v. Fernando *).
The action could not succeed for another reason; the price whichit is sought to challenge in a claim for relief on the ground of laesioenormia must be something ascertained and certain (2 Nathan art.864, 1906 ed.).
The consideration for the sale as alleged by the appellant was asum of Rs. 300 and a promise by the respondent to support theappellant which is not capable of assessment in money.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Fisheh C.J.—I agree.
Appeal dismissed.
{IVW) 10 X. L. It. no