048-NLR-NLR-V-47-UMMUKULATHUMMA-et-al-Appellant-and-UTHUMALEBBE-Respondent.pdf
WIJEYT5WARDENE J.— Ummukulathumma v. Uthumalcbbe.
141
1946Present : Wijeyewardene and Cannon JJ.
IJMMTTKTTLATHTTMMA, et al., Appellants, and UTHtJMALEBBE,
Respondent.
365—D. C. Batticaloa, 275.
Contract—Mortgage—Loan of -paddy—Condition for redeeming mortgage—Return of paddy or its value “ then selling ”—Computation of sumnecessary for redemption of mortgage.
In 1933 the plaintiffs executed a usufructuary mortgage over theirproperty on borrowing from the defendant 45 avanams of paddy “ of. thepresent value of Its. 360 ”. They bound thenselves to redeem the bondby delivering 45 avanams of paddy or “ the value of paddy then sellingThe plaintiffs sought in this action to redeem the bond by offeringRs. 360, the value of the paddy at the time of the execution of themortgage. They admitted, however, that “ the present market priceat which the Government purchased paddy under the internal purchasescheme is Rs. 45 per avanam ”.
Held, that the sum required for redemption of the bond was the valueof the paddy at the time of payment.
Held, further, that the transaction was not governed by the provisionsof the Money Lending Oidinance-.
PPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Batticaloa.
H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him A. C. Nadarajah) for the plaintiffs,appellants.
No appearance for the defendant, respondent.
Cur. adv. milt.
March 19, 1946. Wueybwaedene J.—
By bond P 1 of 1933 the plaintiffs executed a usufructuary mortgageover their property on borrowing from the defendant 45 avanams of paddy“ of the present value of Rs. 360 ”. They bound themselves to redoemthe bond by delivering 45 avanams of paddy or “ the value of paddythen selling ”.
At the trial the plaintiffs admitted. “ that the present market price atwhich the Government purchased paddy under the internal purchasescheme is Rs. 45 per avanam ”.
The plaintiffs seek in this action to redeem the bond by offering Rs. 360,the value of the paddy at the time of the execution of the mortgage.They cannot do this as the bond requires them to offer the value of
142
HE ARNE J.—Jinaeena v. Moosajee.
paddy at the time of payment., I may add that this is not an action forthe recovery of money lent and the provisions of the Mohey LendingOrdinance would not apply. It is not necessary to consider the otherpoints of law urged at the hearing of the appeal in view of the admissionof the plaintiffs at the trial that the Government purchased paddy andthe Government paid Rs. 45 per avanam.
The appeal is dismissed without costs.
Cannon J.—I agree.
Appeal dismissed.