Sri Lanka Law Reports
11993] ISriLR.
given is "* (No). This is not a correct statement because the
defendant did have his Samanera Declaration, P3. However, thedefendant in his evidence stated that it was not he who entered theparticulars in P10. It seems to me that this incorrect statement doesnot in any material way detract from the evidentiary value of P10.
As submitted by Mr. Gooneratne, P10 does not really contradictP3 ; it rather supplements the statement in cage 7 of P3. The factthat P3 constitutes " prima facie ” evidence of the facts containedtherein is not a bar to evidence being admitted to supplement thestatements found in P3. I accordingly hold that P10 displaces theprima facie evidence of P3, and that Jinarama Thero was also oneof the robing tutors of the defendant.
Before I conclude it is right to add that the Upasampada Sittu(V3) and the invitation to the Upasampada ceremony (P5) relied onby Mr. Gooneratne are documents of an equivocal nature and donot tend to rebut the prima facie evidence in P3. The oral evidenceof Loolbaddawe Uparatana, which was somewhat discredited by theletter V8, makes no significant impact on the plaintiff’s case.
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.AMERASINGHE, J. – I agree.
RAMANATHAN, J. – I agree.
Appeal dismissed.