035-NLR-NLR-V-23-RATWATTE-et-al.-v.-RAHIMAN.pdf
( 155 )
Present: Ennis and Schneider JJ.
RATWATTE et al. v. RAHIMAJJ.
343—D. C. Regatta, 5,200.
Rights of paraveni nilakaraya to timber on the panguwa—Service TenuresOrdinance* 1870.
A ninda lord has no rights in the timber growing on the land ofthe paraveni nilakaraya.
E. W. Jayawardene, for plaintiffs, appellants.
H. J. JJ. Pereira (with him Canalcaralne), for defendants,respondents.
July 15,1921. Ennis J.—
The only question in this appeal is whether a ninda lord has anyrights in the timber growing on the land of the paraveni nilakaraya.The only case on the point appears to have been an Avissawella caseNo. 5,303, We have no report of this case, and only know it by areference found in the case of MoUigoda Unambuwe v. Punchi Veda *In the case of Appuhamy v. Menike2 Shaw J., in mentioning theAvissawella case, expressly stated that the corrections of thisdecision may be doubtful. In my opinion the terms of the ServiceTenures Ordinance, 1870, preclude the possibility of the ninda lordhaving any such right. That Ordinance expressly defines a paraveninilakaraya as the holder of a paraveni panguwa in perpetuity,subject to the performance of certain services to the temple ornindagama proprietor. Section 25 of the Ordinance provides thatneglect to render services shall give rise to an action for damagesonly. It would seem, then, that the owner of a land in perpetuitycould not be prevented from cutting timber whenever he likedwhen the failure to perform the only obligation to which he wasliable did not cause the land to revert to the ninda lord. In thesecircumstances, I would dismiss the appeal, with costs.
Schneider J.—I agree.
Appeal dismissed.
1 {1876) Ram. 826.
• (1917) 19 N. L. R. 861.
1021.