149-NLR-NLR-V-23-THE-SUNNYGAMA-CO-LTD-v.-FONSEKA.pdf
( 480 )
1921
Present .* De Sampayo and Schneider JJ.
THE SUNNYGAMA CO., LTD., v. FONSEKA.
29—D. C; Regatta, 5,281.
Deed of conveyance for land situated in Regatta executed in Colombo—
Failure to deliver possession-jurisdiction of Regatta Court.
The defendant by deed executed in Colombo sold to plaintiff apiece of land situated in Kegalla. The plaintiff sued defendant inD. C. Kegalla, alleging that defendant had failed to deliver posses*sion.
Held, that the District Court of Kegalla had jurisdiction, as thecause of action arose within its jurisdiction.
rj^HE facts appear from the judgment.
Allan Drieberg K.G. (with him Mian Pereira), for plaintiffs,appellants.
Oamkeratne (with him B. F. de Silva), for defendant, respondent.
September 80,1921. Dz Sampayo J.—
I think tSiis ap)>eal is entitled to succeed. The defendant bydeed dated May 8,1919, and executed in Colombo, sold and conveyedto the plaintiff company a land of the extent of 20 acres 1 rood and
( 487 )
11 perches. The land is situated in Regalia, within the jurisdictionof the Distriot Court of Kegalla. It appears* that the plaintiffcompany already held deeds for 4 acres out of the 20 acres soldby the defendant, and were in possession of that acreage. Theybrought this action against the defendant, alleging that, except the4 acres, of which they were already in possession, the defendanthad foiled to deliver possession of the balance in fulfilment of hisobligation, and they claim certain relief on that account. Theaction was brought in the District Court of Kegalla. An objectionappears to have been taken on behalf of the defendant that tbeDistriot Court of Kegalla had no jurisdiction, and that the plaintiffcompany should, if atall, sue in the District Court of Colombo, wherethe deed was executed, and where, therefore, the contract was made.This objection was upheld by the Distriot Judge, and the plaintiffs’action was dismissed* The Distriot Judge appears to have reliedupon a judgment of my own, which is cited, namely, Kittoni v.Fernandobut the District Judge appears to have misunderstoodwhat was decided in that case. My judgment does not supportthe ground on which the Distriot Judge dismissed the plaintiffs*action, but, apart from any authority, it is very plain on the face ofthe provisions of the Civil Procedure Code that the Distriot Courtof Kegalla had jurisdiction in this case. It may be that the ColomboDistrict Court also had jurisdiction, being the Court where thecontract was made, but the cause of action certainly arose withinthe District Court of Kegalla, for the plaintiffs* action was foundedupon the defendant’s failure to fulfil his obligation by deliveringpossession of what he sold to the plaintiff company.
I think the appeal should be allowed, and the case sent back fortrial in due course. The plaintiff company should get the costs ofthe appeal
Schneider J.—I agree.
Appeal allowed. 1
1 2 C* W. ft. 187.
1881.
DbBaupato
J.
The
SwmygatnoOo., £r£cl«t v.Foneeha