« EelmineJätka »
Registration-Consolidation of two lands-Field and high land
Two distinct lands, of one of which a person is sole owner and of the other of which he is only entitled to one-half share, cannot be consolidated for purposes of registration without the consent of the owner of the other half share.
But where a field and adjoining high land were treated in the earliest deed produced (P 1 of 1904) as one land, and it was only in recent years the lands were treated as separate lands, the Court held that there was no consolidation of two distinct lands.
"In the later deeds relied on by the defendant the lands have been treated as two separate lands, but that cannot affect the correctness of the description given in P 1."
APPUHAMY V. PETER SINGHO, 55, Court of Requests,
5. Transfer of property subject to mortgage-Failure of mortgagee to register address or lis pendens-Competition between purchaser under mortgage decree and transferree— Lis pendens-Service of summons
6. Mortgage by widow and son for paying of husband's debts— Action by mortgagee No registration of lis pendensPurchase under mortgage decree by defendant-Half land sold on a writ against widow and purchased by plaintiff
7. Sale under mortgage decree--Mortgage action not registered -Lis pendens-Sale under simple money decree--Right of purchaser under mortgage decree to refer back to mortgage bond
Restitutio in integrum
Restitutio in integrum-Settlement-Proctor acting contrary to instructions-Relief given by Supreme Court direct without sending case to District Judge for investigation into allegations in application.
Where a proctor, acting contrary to the instructions of his client, consented to certain terms of settlement, the Supreme Court granted relief by way of restitutio in integrum.
The Supreme Court being satisfied that the proctor acted contrary to instructions gave direct relief without directing the District Judge to investigate the question.
ORR et al. v. GUNATILLEKE et al., District Court,
Right of way
414, 438 18-23
Riparian owners-Right to dam up stream-Dimage to owner
of land higher up
See VENDOR AND PURCHASER
See SALE OF GOODS
Sale of goods
Secretary, Local Board
1. Servitude-Not using the path indicated-Abandonment. For a servitude to be lost by abandonment, the abandonment must be deliberate and intentional.
NAGAMANI V. VINAYAGAMOORTHY et al., 21, Court of
Silt carried along drains in defendant's land into a water
Way of necessity-Order to pay a sum annually to keep
Where the Court entered decree granting the plaintiff a way of necessity, and ordering him to pay defendant one rupee per annum to keep the defendants' right alive.
Held, that the order as to payment of a sum annually was inconsistent with the granting of a way of necessity, and remitted the case for the Commissioner to ascertain what should be paid for the way.
KODITUWAKKU et al. v. MANSEER et al., 38, Court of
Reparian owners- -Right to dam up stream-Damage to
5. Right of co-owner to take carts over common land
1. Stamp duty-Lease Mortgages affecting more lands than one embodied in leases-Ordinance No. 10 of 1919, Part I., Schedule B.
Mortgages affecting more lands than one embodied in leases are chargeable with the full duty chargeable on mortgages, including the duty leviable in respect of additional lands, and they are not entitled to the benefit of the third proviso to paragraph 31A.
WIJESURIYA . SAMARASINGHE, Police Court, Colombo,
Stamp duty-Deed executed by Muhammadan husband in
A Muhammadan husband executed a deed in favour of
Held, that the document should be stamped under item 30
In re the Application of GOONESEKERA, Notary
3. Stamp duty-Actions under the Trusts Ordinance, 1917-
Actions relating to public trusts under the Trusts Ordinance, 1917, are liable to stamp duty as actions of the value of Rs. 1,000.
Sub-section 3 of section 116 of the Trusts Ordinance which enacts that all petitions shall bear a stamp of Rs. 10 was designed to provide for proceedings of a special nature by petitions under sections 35, 74, and 76, and other sections of the Trusts Ordinance.
4. Stamp Ordinance, s. 50-Application to Police Court to recover deficiency of stamp duty-Does an appeal lie?
Substitution of plaintiff
1. Surety Beneficium excussionis-Creditor holds securities given by debtor in trust for surety-Surety discharged if securities become valueless owing to dilatoriness or act of creditor-Creditor can call upon surety to guarantee costs of excussion--Extent to which surety is discharged by misfeasance of creditor.
Where a surety has not renounced the beneficium excussionis, the creditor holds all securities given by the debtor in trust for the surety. The surety is discharged if the securities become valueless, not only by the dilatoriness of the creditor, but also by any act on his part; the act must not be a merely negligent act, but must be a positive act on the part of the creditor.
If a creditor can show that there is no reasonable hope of excussion being successful, he is to ask the surety to guarantee his costs of excussion.
The extent to which surety is discharged by the misfeasance of the creditor considered.
WIJEWARDENE v. JAYAWARDENE, 289, District Court,
2. Security for performance of a judgment or order-Forfeiture
Where security has been given for the performance by a party to a legal proceeding of a judgment or order in such proceeding, application may be made in the same proceeding
for the forfeiture of the bond. Upon such an application
BABUNAPPUHAMY v. DON DAVITH, 4, District Court,
Tesawalamai Property acquired after death of second wife-
S, a Tamil, subject to the Tesawalamai, was married
Held, that on the death of S, the property devolved on
VELUPILLAI et al. v. MUTTUPILLAI, 14, District Court,
Leaving cart on the grass by the road side-Road includes reservation-Thoroughfares Ordinance, No. 16 of 1865, s. 53. The leaving of a cart on the grass by the side of the road longer than is required for loading and unloading, &c., is an offence punishable under section 53 (3) of Ordinance No. 16 of 1865.
The term "road
includes land adjoining the road which
NAIR v. MALLIS APPU, 331, Police Court, Badulla,
Trade Marks Ordinance
Trade Marks Ordinance, 1888-Passing off-Both marks having the figure of a female-Possibility of deception of ignorant people by traders-Is that ground for refusing registration?
The appellants and respondents were manufacturers of condensed milk. The respondents' trade mark, registered in 1893, was the figure of a maid with a pail on the head and another in the hand, and their condensed milk was known as the "Milkmaid Brand." The appellants sought to register their mark, which consisted of a female figure carrying a bunch of flowers in one hand and a sword in the other enclosed in an oval with five medals above the figure, and the words of guarantee in thick letters across it, and the word, "Hollandia," displayed beneath. The District
Judge refused the application, on the ground that the use of a female figure by the appellants, though it may not mislead an intelligent and cautious purchaser who knew English, might deceive an unwary purchaser in Ceylon.
Held, that appellant was entitled to register his mark. "The appellants' mark is in itself not calculated to deceive, and there is no evidence whatever that the appellants have any design to facilitate the passing-off of their goods as the goods of the respondents."
"The deception is not in the use of the mark, but in
HOLLANDIA AND ANGLO-SWISS CONDENSED MILK Co. v.
1. Action for trespass-Constructive possession of plaintiff. Mere constructive possession is not a sufficient basis for an action for trespass.
DIAS v. NIKKo, 53, Court of Request, Galle, 2,564
2. Shooting trespassing fowls
1. Proof of trust-Oral evidence-Is there a difference between express and resulting trust ?-Ordinance No. 1 of 1840, s. 2. Where a person has obtained possession of a property of another, subject to a trust or condition, and fraudulently claims to hold it free from such trust or condition, he cannot be allowed to claim the advantage of the Statute of Frauds. Where such a state of affairs is alleged, oral evidence may be led to establish the trust.
In the application of this rule, no distinction is drawn
RANASINGHE et al. v. FERNANDO et al., 35, District Court,
2. Transfer of property to defraud creditors-Action by heir
PUNCHIHAMY, 78, Court of Requests,
Stamp duty-Actions under the Trusts Ordinance, 1917-