116-NLR-NLR-V-55-MURIEL-AMARASEKERA-nee-WIJESINGHE-Appellant-and-H.-D.-ADLIET-RATNAYAKE-et-.pdf
LORD OAKSEY—Amarasekera v. Ratnayake
409
[Privy Council]
Present: Lord Oaksey, Lord Keith of Avonholm and Sir Lionel LeachMURIEL AMARASEKERA nee WIJESINGHE, Appellant, and H. D.AJDLIET RATNAYAKE et al., Respondents
Privy Council Appeal No. 34 op 1952
S. C. 56 Inty.—D. C. Colombo 10,504
Privy Council—Fresh evidence—Admissibility in appeal.
Where application was made, in appeal, to introduce fresh evidence by ahandwriting expert—
Held, that the application could not be entertained as it disregarded thewell-known rule as to the introduction of fresh evidence.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court.
Sir Frank Soskice, with h. O. Wilberforce, for the appellant.
Dingle Foot, with Carl Jayasinghe, for the respondents.
March 22, 1954. [Delivered by Lord Oaksey]—
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ceylondated 23rd January, 1950, dismissing an appeal by the appellant fromthe judgment of the District Court dated the 25th January, 1949, bywhich probate of the will dated 23rd May, 1943, of James AlbertRatnayake was granted to the respondent Adliet Ratnayake.
The only issue in the petition has been and is whether the will wasa forgery. Their Lordships have listened with attention to the argumentaddressed to them by Sir Frank Soskice, all, or nearly all, of which hadbeen carefully considered and dismissed by the District Judge, and theyagree with the Supreme Court of Ceylon that there is no reason to interferewith the decision of the District Judge, and that a Court of Appeal wouldbe wholly unjustified in interfering. The District Judge who saw the■witnesses disbelieved the appellant’s husband and found as a fact thathe had attempted to suborn one of the witnesses to the will on the questionof forgery. The dispositions of the will appear to their Lordships to bejust, and the appeal to their Lordships’ Board after concurrent findingsof fact to be without any merits.
An application was made to introduce fresh evidence by a handwritingexpert, but as sifch application disregarded the well-known rule as to theintroduction of fresh evidence it could not be entertained.
For these reasons their Lordships will humbly advise Her Majestythat the appeal be dismissed. The appellant must pay the gosts.
18LV
3. N. B 3610^-1,592 (6/54)
Appeal dismissed.