BASNAYAKE, C.J.—Velautham v. Velauther
Present: Basnayake, C.J., and Sinnetamby, J.VUlT)AU TH-A.M and others, Appellants, and YBLAUTJd-fe3R and another
Religious Trust—Suit by persons interested in it—Requirement of Government Agent's:certificate—Form of such certificate—Trusts Ordinance, s. 102 (3).
An action under section 102 (3) of the Trusts Ordinance will not be enter-tained unless it appears from the certificate issued by the Government Agent,that a copy of the plaint had been presented to him along with the petition.
xA-PPEAXi from a judgment of the District Court, Jaffna.
P. Somatilakam, with P. Naguleswaram, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
G. Renganathan, with M. Shanmugalingam, for 1st Defendant-Respondent.
March 11, 1957. Basnayake, C.J.—
The only question that arises for decision in this appeal is whetherthis action has been entertained in contravention of section 102 (3) of"the Trusts Ordinance. That provision reads :
“ No action shall be entertained under this section unless the plain-tiffs shall have previously presented a petition to the Government Agent,or Assistant Government Agent of the Province or district in whichsuch place or establishment is situate praying for the appointment of"
8. O. 157—D. G. Jaffna, TR. 1
1 (1953) 55 N. L. R. 92.
8 (1953) 55 N. L. R. 135.
8 (1942) 44 N.L.R. 73.
BASITAYAKE, C.J.—Velautham v. Velauther
a commissioner or commissioners to inquire into the sabjeet-matterof the plaint, and unless the Government Agent or the AssistantGovernment Agent shall have certified that an inquiry has beenheld in pursuance of the said petition, and that the commissioner orcommissioners (or a majority of them) has reported—
(а)that the subject-matter of the plaint is one that calls for the
consideration of the court; and
(б)either that it has not proved possible to bring about an amicable
settlement of the questions involved,'or that the assistance ofthe court is required for the purpose of giving effect to anyamicable settlement that has been arrived at. ”
In the instant case the certificate issued by the Government Agent isto the following effect:—
“ I do hereby certify under sub-section (3) of Section 102 of theTrusts Ordinance (Cap. 72) that in pursuance of a petition presentedto me by Mr. S. Velautham and nine others of Analaitivu regarding themanagement of the Sangaramoorthy Murugamoorthy Temple, Analai-tivu, in the Divisional Revenue Officer’s division of Islands, I appointedMessrs. A. Thiruneelakandan, Karampan, Eayts, A. Saravanamuthu,
J.P., Pungudutivu, and V. KLandiah, Chairman, V. C., Nainativu,by an act of appointment dated 3rd January, 1955 commission toenquire into the subject matter of the said petition and
“ 2. That the enquiry had been held in pursuance of the saidpetition and that the said commissioners have reported :
(а)That the subject-matter of the said petition is one that calls for
consideration of the Court;
(б)That it has not been proved possible to bring about an amicable
settlement of the questions involved. ”
Objection was taken at the trial to the form of the certificate and alsoto the fact that it appears from the certificate that no plaint has beenpresented along with the petition to the Government Agent. Thelearned trial Judge after hearing counsel held that in his view the Govern-ment Agent’s certificate should be that the commissioners have “ reported(a) that the subject matter of the plaint is one that calls for considerationof the Court,” and that a copy of the plaint should have been presentedalong with the petition to the Government Agent. We are in entireagreement with that view. The Government Agent’s certificate is not inthe form required by section 102 (3) of the Trusts Ordinance.
The action is therefore one that cannot be entertained as section 102 (3)declares that no action shall be entertained unless the Government Agentshall have certified that the commissioners have reported that the subjectmatter of the plaint is one that calls for the consideration of the Court.Clearly the commissioners cannot make such a report unless the plaint
Tennekoo-n v. The Principal Collector of Ctistoms
is annexed to the petition presented to the Government Agent and hecannot certify that they have so reported unless the commissioners have-done so. Oar decision is in accord with the view taken by this Court inthe case of Sivagwru v. A lagaratnam1.
The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs.
SisrarcETAMBY, J.—I agree.