175-NLR-NLR-V-48-PERERA-Appellant-and-PERERA-Respondent.pdf
JAYETTLEKK J.—Perera v. Perm
1947
ns
Present: Jayetileke J.
PERERA, Appellant, and PERERA, Respondent..S. C. 190—C. R. Colombo, 4,783
Tort—Injury to -person—Right of private defence—Damages.
An act done in self-defence is a lewful act and no action will lie 'orinjuries caused by it.
1 {1909) 1 Current L. R. 107.* A. I. R. (1932) Lahore 371.
576
JAYETLLEKE J.—Perera v. Pereira.
A
PPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests,Colombo.
E. O. F. de Silva, for the defendant, appellant.
No appearance-for the plaintiff, respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
October 17. 1947. Jayatileke J.—
The plaintiff sued the defendant in this action for the recovery of asum of Rs. 300 as damages on the ground that the defendant assaultedhim and fractured his left hand. The Commissioner accepted theevidence of the defendant’s son that the defendant inflicted the injuryon the plaintiff in the exercise of the right of private defence, but yet heawarded to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 100 as damages. This order isclearly wrong. Voet1 says that an act done in self-defence is a lawfulact, and, consequently, no action will lie for injuries caused by the same.
1 would set aside the judgment appealed against and dismiss theplaintiff’s action with costs here and in the Court below.
Appeal allowed.
> Voet H.2.22, 28.
pbjxtbd at thb ootoikbr
I, CEYLOS